Being & Alien
Ontological Slime Self Portrait 2000 Alex Alien
"Amun is Alien."
Alex Alien, 2006.
"We're all aliens."
Sam Neil, Space, 2002.
"The Truth is Out There."
The X-Files, 1993.
"Art is the Time of the Alien."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006.
"There's an alien on the loose."
Russell T. Davies, Torchwood, 2006.
Aeschylus, 525 BC-456 BC.
"The unknown name, alien to naming."
Maurice Blanchot, 1980.
"We say that art is serving alien values."
Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language.
"Art attests to what is Inhuman in man."
Alain Badiou, Le siècle, 2005.
"O You, the Great God, whose name is unknown."
Pharaoh Unis, Hymn to Amun, PT 276c - ca. 2350 BCE.
"Art alien is essentially doing evil to the human."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006.
"Philosophy is really there to redeem what lies in an animal's gaze."
Theodor W. Adorno to Max Horkheimer, 24th March, 1956.
"The truth of art is this: the essence of alien being revealing itself ."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2002.
"It is necessary to enter into confrontation with otherness or the alien."
Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin Lecture, University of Freiberg, 1934.
"He is outside of everything, and alien everywhere. He is an aesthetic solitary."
Henry James, Nathaniel Hawthorne, New York: R. S. Peale and J. A. Hill, 1896.
"...'Our' origins are...profoundly non-original. Once upon a time, 'we' were aliens."
Neil Badmington, Alien Chic: Posthumanism and the Other Within, Routledge, 2004.
"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1885.
"I feel myself to be an alien in the world. If you have no ties to either mankind or to God, then you are an alien."
Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius, Ray Monk, Penguin Books, 1990.
"The first contact the alien makes with the human subject is through the transmission of a kind of ontological drool."
Mark Cousins, The Ugly, AA Files, Number 29, Summer 1995.
"In one of the most remarkable passages of his Aesthetics, Hegel defined the task of art as the appropriation of the alien."
Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, The Athlone Press, 1997.
"The establishing of truth in the work is the bringing forth of a being such as never was before and will come to be again."
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.
"Zizek's subject is always already 'already alien' where the human hides the inhuman in the Name of the Law of the Ather."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006.
"We have a reptile brain way down inside. And that brain is cold-blooded. That part part of the brain. And it kills. And it doesn't care."
John Carpenter, Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 2006.
"The reconciled condition would not be the philosophical imperialism of annexing the alien. Instead, its happiness would lie in the fact that the alien, in the proximity it is granted, remains distant and different, beyond the heterogeneous and beyond that which is one's own."
Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 1970.
"What is Woman and What does Woman want? Woman is Alien. Woman wants Alien. To-be Alien left-alone to-be Alien. Away from the Human being-without Man thus There is no sexual-relation since Man is Human and Woman is Alien which is why Men do not know what Women want but We do know that Women do not want Men but Man will not leave Woman alone always assuming that Woman is Human and not Alien."
Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2011.
"An eternally suspended future floats around the congealed position of a statue like a future forever to come. The imminence of the future lasts before an instant stripped of the essential characteristic of the present, its evanescence. The eternal duration of the interval in which a statue is immobilized differs radically from the eternity of the concept; it is the meanwhile, never finished, still enduring - something inhuman and monstrous."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Collected Philosophical Papers, trans. Alphonso Lingis; Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.
"The more solitary the work, fixed in the figure, stands on its own and the more cleanly it seems to cut all ties to human beings, the more simply does the thrust come into the open that such a work is, and the more essentially is the extraordinary thrust to the surface and what is long-familiar thrust down...This letting the work be a work we call preserving the work."
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.
"The dragon-shaped alien, recalling portraits of the satanic beast of the apocalypse, is capable of invading our most intimate being... Derrida sums up the aporia of the alien-other thus: 'the outsider (hostis) received as host or as enemy. Hospitality, hostility, hostipitality'. Fully cognisant of the way this undecidable dialectic confounds our ethical conventions, Derrida affirms the priority of a hospitality of justice - open to the absolute other as another without a name."
Richard Kearney, Aliens and Others; Strangers, Gods and Monsters, Routledge 2003.
"Like those severe but tonic writers, Bacon feels his art represents the simple unalloyed truth of existence as he perceives it, no matter how hard to bear that reality may be... Basically, Bacon believes in a form of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's nihilism and certainly, too, in the aspect of the Greek ideal that Nietzsche so enthusiastically endorsed, the Dionysian conquest of pessimism through art."
Sam Hunter, Francis Bacon: A Retrospective, Washington D.C., 1989.
“If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans. We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
Stephen Hawking, Stephen Hawking's Universe; Aliens; Discovery Channel, Discovery Channel 2010.
"What if truth were monstrous? What if it were even monstrosity itself, the very condition, the very form, of everything monstrous, everything deformed? But, first of all, itself essentially deformed, monstrous in its very essence? What if there were within the very essence of truth something essentially other than truth, a divergence from nature within nature, true monstrosity? How could one then declare the truth - if it were monstrous?"
John Sallis, Deformatives - Essentially Other Than Truth, Reading Heidegger: Commemorations, Indiana University Press, 1993.
"Art is estrangement, self-estrangement (causing self-forgetfulness) but also estrangement from the human. Art is uncanny in the sense of monstrous, the not quite or no longer human, the almost - or once-human... Art perhaps pays the price by 'going [Celan says] beyond what is human, stepping into the realm which is turned toward the human, but uncanny - the realm where the monkey, the automatons and with them...oh, art, too seem to be at home..."
Gerald L. Burns, Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
"We've evolved over millions of years into the state of unnaturalness that we are in now. Humans are totally unnatural. And they vary from race to race in their degrees of unnaturalness...There's nobody more unnatural than I am myself and, after all, I've worked on myself to be as unnatural as I can... One can only talk about one's own instincts and stay away from the rest... Nietzsche forecast our future for us - he was the Cassandra of the nineteenth century - he told us it's all so meaningless we might as well be extraordinary."
Francis Bacon, Interview with Peter Beard, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1975.
"In his rejection of narrative in favour of the triptych, the attendant figure and repetition, Bacon is the most Kantian of painters yet. His approach is always to address the sensation with a diagram (as Deleuze calls a painterly technique applied to thought). The diagram immediately diverts the path of the sensation onto the canvas and back out into sensation. Diverts it away from assimilation to concepts and narrative. It establishes, frames, a second register like that of the anticipations of perception, this time on the canvas. The painting becomes a focus for the repetition of the sensation, to the painter and others. It is as Kant says, a sensus communis."
Robert O'Toole, Kant, painting unlocking sensation in senus communis; Warwick Blogs, University of Warwick, August 18 2004.
"The re-covering of immediate sensible perception in Being thus harbours two others that are ceremonially yoked without connection: what is yet unspoken, in the case of man, and what is without speech, in case of the other. But the deciphering, the release, of this seal of Being cannot take place in a language whose fundamental move is propriation. What is too near would slip its seizure. A distance, there, would be of unbreachable measure - something infinitely small whose cipher would remain in obscurity. Something that suffuses the eye and the hearing and all senses, like an air that is neither seen nor heard but nevertheless is there. Fluid medium that accompanies every perception and bestows its tone upon it. Like a silent incarnation everywhere at work."
Luce Irigaray, The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger, University of Texas Press, Austin 1983.
"What is left is helpless raw being. Bacon takes such authoritative historical figures as Pope Innocent X and Vincent van Gogh and reduces them outrageously to clots of paint. They are overwhelmed by paint, into which they sink as if in quicksand. Is the scream of Innocent X recognition of his dissolution? Bacon repeatedly 'misinterprets' the strength of character he seems to find in the 1650 Diego Velázquez portrait of the Pope as sheer monstrousness, brutality. More than Picasso in his historical paintings, Bacon destroys what creates in the very act of recreating. The destruction no doubt has world-historical import - the sadistic character of the Pope is brought home by the sadistic way paint is applied to him, as if it were acid - but the key point is that paint triumphs over human reality, becomes the dominant expression of being."
Donald Kuspit, Hysterical Painting, Art Forum, January 1986.
"The alien messiah has been such a pervasive figure in science fiction films of the last twenty years as to mark some sort of cultural phenomenon... The alien messiah's appearance usually occurs in two stages. The first establishes the vulnerability and weakness of human characters...The second stage brings an alien force that rescues the human characters from the threatening circumstances they suffer. Inevitably, in the first stage human existence is circumscribed by closure. Inevitably, in the second stage closure gives way to openness. Underlying the motif of the alien messiah is the mythos of the Christian messiah, begotten by the divine Jehovah on a mortal woman, sent to redeem a sin-ridden humanity and to offer immortality. Although the alien messiah is usually a benevolent, anthropomorphic being intent on doing good, darker incarnations do occur."
Hugh Ruppersburg, The Alien Messiah; Alien Zone, Verso, 1990.
"The actions of religious sacrifice and of erotic fusion, in which the subject seeks to be 'loosed from its relatedness to the I' and to make room for re-established 'continuity of Being', are exemplary for him. Bataille, too, pursues the traces of a primordial force that could heal the discontinuity or rift between the rationally disciplined world of work and the outlawed other of reason. He imagines this overpowering return to a lost continuity as the eruption of elements opposed to reason, as a breathtaking act of self-de-limiting. In this process of dissolution, the monadically closed-off subjectivity of self-assertive and mutually objectifying individuals is dispossess and cast down into the abyss."
Jürgen Habermas, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987.
"Our rare thinkers (great or less great) might just be dinosaurs - infinitely precious, too fragile, cumbersome, and monstrous. But perhaps we will still learn something by opening up the 'eggs' they left behind on our polluted shores; and by not forgetting that - beyond the cold (yet comfortable) blinking of the cursor on our word processors - philosophy has always been in keeping with suffering; philosophy was and remains suffering; it never knew, and still does not know, how to face up to it. Thought, a matter of craftsmanship? Heidegger was justified in recalling this point. But thinking is also a suffering inchoation."
Dominique Janicaud, The Shadow of That Though - Heidegger and the Question of Politics, Northwestern University Press, 1990.
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, New York, 1955.
"The shudder released by the work of art, the experience of the modernist sublime, is the memory of the experience of terror and strangeness in the face of threatening nature. Shudder is the memorial experience of nature's transcendence, its non-identity and sublimity, at one remove....Shudder is a memory, an afterimage, 'of what is to be preserved'... Shudder is the address of the other; it corresponds to what Gadamer would identify as strangeness in the object of understanding, and what Heidegger thinks of in terms of the claim of being. Above all, shudder is the terror of the sublime in Kant, a terror made safe by the retraction of the object at its source."
J. M. Bernstein, The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno, Polity Press, 1992.
"As Levinas writes: 'A painting, a statue, a book are objects of our world, but through them the things represented are extracted from our world.' The artwork effects thus an alienation of the world. The privilege of sensation over cognition in the experience of an artwork does not suggest that sensation is a precondition of perception and cognition; rather it indicates a fundamental foreignness with respect to cognition and to perception which, Levinas argues is always perception of and within a world...The alienation effected by by the artwork explains why objects which strike one as intrinsically foreign objects, for example, which belong to antiquity or to archaic civilizations, will, without being works of art, produce an aesthetic effect....Levinas observes modern art's tendency to thematize a brute, crude materiality, the elemental strangeness and density that are prior to the world, that are left over at the end of the world, and, more importantly, they remain resistant to illumination, appropriation, and integration."
Alain P. Toumayan, Encountering the Other: The Artwork and the Problem of Difference in Blanchot & Levinas, Duquesne, 2004.
"So far we have seen that the shudder is not just a mimetic reaction to primary, undifferentiated otherness. It is also, and more importantly for our purposes, a spontaneous and somatic response of revulsion at pure identity. But even in this extended sense the shudder is not merely a negative response. The shudder fulfils a positive epistemic function. It is the gateway to the path of truth. It allows what is to disclose itself as radically evil. As such, the shudder is the form which metaphysical experience assumes under social conditions of total identity...In Aesthetic Theory Adorno claims that works of modernist art can, in virtue of their characteristic autonomy, successfully capture and impart the shudder...The shudder is a reaction to the cryptically shut, which is a function of that element of indeterminacy."
James Gordon Finlayson, Metaphysical Experience: Shudder as Inverted Wonder; University of Sussex.
"I would like to make and maintain a strict distinction between two terms in what follows: 'the other' and 'the alien'... Let me now turn to the concept of the 'alien.' I believe it is safe to say without too much qualification that Husserl tends to use the term 'alien' when he stresses the novelty of transcendence, its inaccessibility, its unfamiliarity or strangeness; he also uses 'alien' when he wants to emphasize a cultural and historical phenomenon It is also significant to note that when articulating the theory of intersubjectivity in terms homeworld/alienworld Husserl invariably uses the expression 'alien' and refrains from the expression 'other'... Following Levinas and Waldenfels, the alien is accessible as that toward which we respond and have responded... Being responsive to the alien is a participation with the alien as alien in its generative depth... I respond from the home toward that which does not simply originate from the home. In being responsive, I go toward that which comes from without - the alien - from within."
Anthony J. Steinbock, The Other and the Alien; Home and Beyond: Generative Phenomenology after Husserl; Northwestern University Press, 1995.
"Alterity, the otherness of the other, gives obligation. Alterity, in the face of the disappearance of God, now traces itself across the face of the other person. Divine inversion has now produced a work of human inversion, a reversal of each ego's relationship to itself, so that now each self, having lost its ties to the origin, finds itself only other and utterly alien. It is this for it is only what it is by being other and not itself. This is by no means a Hegelian self-difference that calls out to identity, but an absolute difference, an identity whose identity is difference. Now, when all identity is difference, the self cannot lodge within itself, finding there a restful space of introspection. One finds, now, that the inner is the outer. The other, no longer transcendent, is the seat of the psyche. Therefore now, expenditure, which is the gift of creation, has no other direction than toward the other. This obligation to the other is the first and most absolute responsibility and, since this precedes eternally any conscious decision, it simply is. It is the body of matter itself."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Alterity and Obligation To and For the Other, (1905-1995).
"The science fiction horror film Alien (1979) is a complex representation of the monstrous-feminine in terms of the maternal figure as perceived within a patriarchal ideology. She is there in the text's scenarios of the primal scene of birth and death; she is there in her many guises as the treacherous mother, the oral sadistic mother, the mother as the primordial abyss; and she is there in the film's images of blood, of an all-devouring vagina, the toothed vagina, the vagina of Pandora's box; and finally she is there in the chameleon figure of the alien, the monster as fetish-object of and for the mother...The notion of female fetishism is represented in Alien in the figure of the monster....The monster as fetish object is not there to meet the desires of the male fetishist, but rather to signify the monstrousness woman's desire to have the phallus. In Alien, the monstrous creature is constructed as the phallus of the negative mother. This image of the archaic mother - threatening because it signifies woman as difference rather than constructed as opposition - is, once again, collapsed into the figure of the pre-Oedipal mother... Alien presents various representations of the primal scene."
Barbra Creed, Alien and the Monstrous Feminine; Alien Zone, Verso, 1990.
"Artworks remain enlightened because they would like to make commensurable to human beings the remembered shudder, which was incommensurable in the magical primordial world... Artworks become appearances in the pregnant sense of the term - that is, as the appearance of an other - when the accent falls on the unreality of their own reality. Artworks have an immanent character of being an act, even if they are curved in stone; and this endows them with the quality of being something momentary and sudden. This is registered by the feeling of being overwhelmed when faced with an important work...To this extent they are truly after-images of the primordial shudder... Ultimately, aesthetic comportment is to be defined as the capacity to shudder, as if goose bumps were the first aesthetic image. What later came to be called subjectivity, freeing itself from the blind anxiety of the shudder, is at the same time, the shudder's own development; life in the subject is nothing but what shudders, the reaction to the total spell that transcends the spell. Consciousness without shudder is reified consciousness. That shudder in which subjectivity stirs without yet being subjectivity is the act of being touched by the other. Shudder is a kind of anticipation of subjectivity, a sense of being touched by the other."
Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, The Athlone Press, 1997.
"At Lascaux, art is not beginning, nor is man beginning. But it is at Lascuax, in its vast and narrow cave, along its populated walls, in a space that seems never to have been a dwelling place, that art no doubt for the first time reached the plenitude of initiative and thus opened to man a unique abode with himself and with the marvel, behind which he had necessarily to remove and efface himself in order to discover himself: the majesty of the great bulls, the dark fury of bison, the grace of the little horses, the dreamy sprightliness of the stags... As we know, man is represented - and then merely by schematic features - only in the scene at the bottom of the well: there he lies, stretched out between a charging bison and a rhinoceros that is turned the other way. Is he dead? Is he asleep? Is he feigning a magical immobility? Will he come to, come back to life?...It is striking that with the figuration of man, an enigmatic element enters into this work, a work otherwise without secret...Yet it seems to me that the meaning of this obscure drawing is nonetheless clear: it is the first signature of the first painting, the mark left modestly in the corner, the furtive, fearful, indelible trace of man who is for the first time born of his work, but who also feels seriously threatened by this work and perhaps already struck with death."
Maurice Blanchot, The Birth of Art, Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics, Stanford University Press, 1997.
"What ever it might be, the ugly must constitute, or be able to constitute, an element of art; a work by the Hegelian Karl Rosenkranz bears the title The Aesthetics of the Ugly... The concept of the ugly may well have originated in the separation of art from its archaic phase: It marks the permanent return of the archaic, intertwined with the dialectic of the enlightenment in which art participates. Archaic ugliness, the cannibalistically threatening cult masks and grimaces, was the substantive imitation of fear, which is disseminated around itself as expiation. As mythical fear diminished with the awakening of subjectivity, the traits of this fear fell subject to the taboo whose organon they were; they first became ugly via-a-vis the idea of reconciliation, which comes into into the world with the subject and nascent freedom... Nietzsche's dictum that all good things were once dreadful things, like Shelling's insight insight into the terror of the beginning, may well have their origins in the experience of art. The ambiguousness of the ugly results from the fact that the subject subsumes under the abstract and formal category of ugliness everything condemned by art: polymorphous sexuality as well as the violently mutilated and lethal... In the history of art, the dialectic of the ugly has drawn the category of the beautiful into itself; kitsch is, in this regard, the beautiful as the ugly..."
Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, Athlone Press 1997.
"The dynamic of the subject's relation to the alien is that the way in which the alien contaminates space expresses itself as a ceaseless move towards - a pursuit of - the subject. The ugliness of the alien always begins to betray itself through an indistinctness of form; the alien is equivalent, not to its form, but to the stuff that leaks through its form. The movement of the alien towards the human being is also expressed by the increasingly liquid character of the former. The first contact the alien makes with the human subject is through the transmission of a kind of ontological drool. The defences of the subject are redoubled in an attempt to brush off this stuff, the ugly, and to re-establish the radical physical difference between the subject and the ugly object. At the last moment before which the subject is engulfed by the stuff of the alien, the subject produces a response which already announces its defeat - that of vomiting...The final collapse of the subject and its defences comes about in precisely the action of the ugly object revealing to the subject that they are the same. But this type of account, with its stress on the excess of stuff as that which characterises the ugly object, while it may document the case of what is there and should not be, is likely to be misleading. For there is a special case of that which is there and should not be; it is that which is not there and should be."
Mark Cousins, The Ugly, AA Files, Number 29, Summer 1995.
"Neither inside, nor outside, the abject is unthinkable. It disrupts the terms of the opposition between inner and outer, system and non-system, subject and object. It is not the correlate of the subject – it is not an object...The system finds the abject unbearable, intolerable, unassimilable...The abject can be named, can be identified, can be isolated, and characterized, but not without a certain misnaming, a mismatching, a misconstrual. Abjection resists language, even as we communicate it in the most successful exchange–as if it could ever be contained or controlled, mediated. Irrecuperable, irreducible, its representation is always also its undoing. Like chora, what this word names is already illegitimate, as soon as the said is completed. Words have already missed their target. What would it matter if in a hypothetical world abjection never returned? Its damage is already accomplished. It has become the threat that summoned it. In becoming the very threat it tried to ward off, in becoming the unacceptable, unspeakable, it assures for itself a legitimacy, a domain. It takes the place of representation, but it does not represent. One cannot quite say it becomes representation, for it is never objectifiable. It objectifies. It does not exist, it is not an agency, it is not a subjective force. It proposes limits, borders, gives a place, but it does not originate, instigate, or initiate. It beckons, invites, tempts, invades, propositions, ridicules, allures."
Tina Chanter, Abjection, Death and Difficult Reasoning: The Impossibility of Naming Chora in Kristeva and Derrida, Tympanum 4, 2000.
"Perhaps, this Hegelian notion of habit allows us to account for the cinema-figure of zombies who drag themselves slowly around in a catatonic mood, but persisting forever; are they not figures of pure habit, of habit at is most elementary, prior to the rise of intelligence (of language, consciousness, and thinking. This is why a zombie par excellence is always someone whom we knew before, when he was still normally alive – the shock of a character in a zombie-movie is to recognize the former best neighbor is the creeping figure tracking him persistently. (Zombies, these properly un-canny (un-heimlich) figures are therefore to be opposed to aliens who invade the body of a terrestrial: while aliens look and act like humans, but are really foreign to human race, zombies are humans who no longer look and act like humans; while, in the case of an alien, we suddenly become aware that the one closet to us – wife, son, father – is an alien, was colonized by an alien, in the case of a zombie, the shock is that this foreign creep is someone close to us.) What this means is that at the most elementary level of our human identity, we are all zombies, and our ‘higher’ and ‘free’ human activities can only take place insofar as they are founded on the reliable functioning of our zombie-habits: being-a-zombie is a zero-level of humanity, the inhuman/mechanical core of humanity: this, of course is Hegel’s analysis of habit. The shock of encountering a zombie is not the shock of encountering a foreign entity, but the shock of being confronted by the disavowed foundation of our own humanness."Slavoj Žižek, Mythology, Madness and Laughter, Continuum 2009.
"Chance and instinct are two key components of Francis Bacon's terminology to which he constantly returned... It was Kant who first emphasised as Bacon maintains here, that instinct was without self-insight, stating that instinct is 'the inner compulsion of the faculty of desire to take this object into possession, before one is acquainted with it'. Yet the fact remains that the distinction between inspiration and instinct cannot always be clearly drawn, especially as Bacon occasionally felt himself to be a medium for more more powerful forces. Hence, Nietzsche's definition of inspiration can certainly be brought to bear with reference to Bacon, if '...suddenly, with indescribable certainty and subtlety, something becomes visible, audible, something that shakes one to the last depths and throws one down [...] One hears, one does not seek; one accepts, one does not ask who gives; like lightening, a thought flashes up, with necessity, without hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice [...] Everything happens involuntarily in the highest degree [...] the involuntariness of image and metaphor is strangest of all; one on longer has any notion of what is an image or a metaphor; everything offers itself as the nearest, most obvious, simplest expression.' [Ecce Homo] The compulsion (in Kant's terms) to grasp something, the form of which is as yet unknown (instinct) is very much akin to what Nietzsche describes so energetically; all that is missing from Bacon's instinctive action is the impulse of revelation which is ultimately so central to Nietzsche's view."
Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the Unconscious; The Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.
Francis Bacon at the Tate Gallery London 1985 John Minihan
In the Beginning was the Sensation and the Sensation was with Sun and the Sensation was Sun. The Sun Threw the Sensation of Being. Being and Sensation. Being Sensation. Being and Sensation are Beingtime as Beingsensatiom. Sensation is Being as Amun Becoming. Amun Becoming is the Sensation of the Sun Ra Coming ahead as the Son Coming off over the Sun Coming to a Head sending seeding stimmung Semenisation Sensation dissemenating dasein ahead as a Head of Time ahead of time. Amun Abjectedness is the Divine Coming of a Head Coming Off of a Head lit by the light of the Coming Sun drenching dasein as a Sein Shooting Semen Shard shed straight ahead attuning Amun as a Head of the Sun. Semen is the Sensation of Amun Arriving as a Head of the Sun. Amun always already swallows Spunk spent sending Sensation sutured surfaced Spat serving Sun severing Sun. Semen serves the Sun severs the Sun. Sun swallows Semen. Amun abjects Ra. Amun Comes all over Ra - Becoming Amun-Ra - hiding His Head with wet Semen Skin. Here hear the Hymn of the Hidden Him who wears No Name: "O You, the Great God, whose name is unknown."
An anointed Amun announced: "When I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One who Came into Being in the Beginning when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One it meant that my Coming into Being was the Coming into Being of beings for I am more Primeval than the Primeval Ones whom I have Spunked. (Because) I have been Primeval among the Primeval Ones my No Name is much more Primeval than the They. (And when) I had Made the Primevalness of the Primeval Ones I did my every wish in this World in which I had become Abroad. I had clenched my Fist when I was all Alone before the They were born: I had not Spunk out Shu, I had not Spunked out Tefnut I had brought My own Mouth, my No Name was Magic: it was I who had Come into Being in being when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One. When I had Come into Being as the Primeval Ones a Multitude of beings Came into Being at Once before any being Came into Being in this World. I had Made every Spunked thing when I was all Alone before any other Came into Being who might Act with Me in that Place. I Made beings Being There through that shot Spunk of Mine." (Amun-Ra Book of Knowing the Creations of Ra - trans. circa: 312-311 B.C.). Being comes to Dasein through Amun coming Off aborting Being There coming Ahead. Amun Will Come Again and Again and Rise Ahead Again and Again and Come All Over You All Again and Again as the Resurrection of the Eternal Return of the Ereignis Erection as the Resurrection of the Real Alien.
Amun Ra Coming Into Being Alex Alien autophotoprortrait 1980
Absent Amun arrives away aborted as a Hidden Head served severed apart and ahead of Being and Time coming Over the Time as a S(p)ent Sign as a Semen Sein - ontic ooze - dasein drool. As a Time of Sensation still waiting and wanking awhile to Come - again and after hard Amun has Come contained and concealed - Comes the Clearing of the Unconcealing of the Truth of Being - as a severe Severed Semen Sensation - Coming over our Origin and Abandoning the Sight of the Sun for the Site of the Son throwing Thoth. Sun-Ra swallows Amun's semen throwing Thoth forth. Ra radiates rays ahead activating Amun's showering semen strike - like liquid lightning - as anointing Amun-Ra raining reveals Amun-Ra reigning forth fountaining forever down drowning Dasein as a Coming of Absence as a Coming over Presence. And as a Coming to Presence where does Absent Amun Come from? Amun comes from Cum. Amun Comes as Cum. Cum coming ahead and away and arriving alight as a Shooting Star Spunking Sein ahead all over the other-head all over the god-head all over the earth-head making-man as a being-head heading ahead all Hard as an Erect Ereignis eternal return rejointing being to time throwing time back to being Becoming all Alien again. Alien comes again. Amun comes again. And Amun is All Alien. Amun is Alien. Alien is All.
Amun Announces Assassinate President Mubarak
Divine Head of the God Amun 690 - 664 B.C
Who created the Universe? The Universe started with the Semen strike becoming a ball of Fire. It was called Sun. When the Semen subsided the first Land to appear was the Benben Stone and on it stood the Sun God Atum who created Himself by coming by himself coming in himself coming over himself coming with himself coming to himself coming out of himself. Atum self-sucked himself-off and spat out the Hot-Spunk which was the Wet-Air Tephnut-Shu. When Atum masturbated his massive meat the first word he ejaculated was deified into the God Hu - the Divine Utterance. Atum then drew drops of bright blood from his huge colossal cock and so created the Goddess Sia. Sia was the embodiment of the Divine Knowledge Omniscience of the Gods. Hu was the personification of the Divine Utterance - the Voice of the Gods. Heka the embodiment of the Divine Power jointed them in a Divine Triad. After Geb-Earth and Nut-Sky were born Mankind was Created from the hot shot Spunk of Atum aimed ahead at His Head ahead of God who could not Come to a Head for God served no Semen to Shoot ahead to Make Man for God did not Come to Make Man for Man Made God for Bliss Death of Eternal Life and God Made Man from Alien and Man will Become Alien Again After Death.
Man could not Come could not Come to Become God only Amun came to become God for Amun is not Man but Amun Comes as Man and Comes in Man to free Man from God and Amun is the only Man for Amun is the only God but Man does not know this at All yet Amun knows this as Amun Murdered the Father of Man and Fucked the Son of God so that the Murdered Father can Fuck the Dead Son into Infinity where at Last at Least Being Dead becomes Being God where Amun Fucks the Son through the Father to Being God as by Being Dead and the Son needs Eternal Fucking to free the Son from the Father who Fucks the Son Eternally to Death for the Son to get a Glimpse of God when His Eyes are Shut and the Spunk Sees the Face of God through the Arse of the Son and the Father feeds the Son the Rod of Amun so Deep and Hard that the Son feels the frisson of the Torch of God as the Touch of God and so the Son knows to be Fucked by Amun is to be Torched by God to be Touched by God and so the Son is Eternally and Infinitely forever Fucked by Amun for His own Good for His own God coming Deep Inside the Son giving His Son the Spunking Sensation of Being Dead tingling-vibrating jubilate jouissance juices jointing Infinite Bliss to Eternal Life as an after-life after-death.
Amun Announces Assassinate President Mubarak
As Our Ra radiates Itself - Our Amun arises and Comes to Rise Up - to tower - to shower over all. Amun Stands Forth. Firm and Hard as Wet which Cums to a Head as that Wet welcome which Cums over all and over-all-time all-over-again as that which is sheltered and shining in its own orbit - its own aura - its own awe - and always as a self-secluding hidden-hiding. Amun demands His decisiveness and His distance and so lets being leak and attain to attend to the Opening of the Eye at the End of the Ereignis Erection. Amun as always juicing and jutting strives to keep Itself closed from coming and to entrust everything to its eventual ejaculation. Amun's alluring aborted semening stuff strife is the initiated intimacy with which combatants coming-together as a coming-apart belong to each other coming all over each other. This coming together of the penises pulls the oozing opponents together in the ornate origin of their oozing oils by violent virtue of their common coming-together coming to a head over a head all at once. The thrust thirst semen strife strike that is thus brought back into the thit rift of the that real - and thus that thit shot into the eye of ereignis-ba bonded-by blinding-being by-be binding-being - bringing-back welded-wet with together-there out-of-time out-of-there our out-of-juice our out-of-joint as our jettisoned-jouissance serving-sein severing-sein from being-in-time all-the-time being for the time being of being time to the semening-sensationing dissemening-dasein to being-out-of-time for being the thit for the thit needs no time to be it the thit as being its thit for its being thit that is being-thit-in-itself-by-being thit for itself and you become your thit when you become your own being without time for when you are for time your are not for thit.
Angoisse Amun Self Portrait 2000 Alex Alien
Amun (Ammon-Ra) radiates and activates an autofellatio abjected Semening Sensationing birthing being bringing Being. Sensation is the Semen of the Sun. Sensation is the Sun of Time. Sensation is the Sound of Time. Sensation is the Being of Time. Sensation is Beingtime. Sensationbeingtime. Beingtime shines shining shimmers shudders spilling sowing Sensationism: Sensation Being essentially eggos: shines shimmers smazes smirches slithers as an alluring Arsinoe altaric atta Aten Sensationism sensationing goes gleaming glittering glowing golden grandeur grasping groin. Beaming brightening Being Sensation tied tide to thrown time. Rhythm reeks raw ready shimmering Semen Sensation slither sliver shards froth forth from tide time to bled Being born. Even sown sensation, it remains strange to assert that what is most sensation-provoking in our sensation-provoking time is that we are still not Sensationing. Sensation-provoking is what gives us to sensation. Semen Sensationing sown shines shot through thrown time when where well the Throwing of Light is the Throwing of Time where well wet lustrous leaked Leakness registers raw the Throwness of orbited out of Thrown Time. Semen Sensationing - as a castrated coming to a Head - is ahead and pre-times Time all the time and Sensation pre-languages Language all the time and Sensation pre-thinking Thinking all the time and Sensation pre-politics Politics all the time: Sensation as Semenisation shooting ahead as an abjected abimage - authentic alien art - pre-exists re-presentation and All all the time all the time. Amun arrives always already as Art. Amun as 'the hidden one' orbits Obelisk outside Otherness as Atherness as Alterity as Altarity as Alien as Alian as an alien art and art alien is the alian as the A of Ra: as art is 'Ra' not 'Re': art is not not re-presentation: art is ra-presentation: for 'Re' is 'to present back toward one' but Ra does not need to return to presence to represent: Ra is always already an absent Presence without the need of the return of the Re of representation and in art alien there can be no representation as such since art alien as alien art arrives after representation before presentation being art after being present arriving as art after being representation before being presentation being after art and art arrives before being becoming being becoming alien becoming being alien being art and what is art is alien and what is alien is art and art arrived before being human and survived after human being becoming being alien alien being.
A Semen Soaked Zoser Anointed by Amun
Amun activated art Alien as Amun Ra-di-ates atta allen dasein drool delivering divine masturbation moist making man. Activated Amun Comes to a Head - all over His Head - all over His Shrine - obliterating oozing obelisk - showering semening sunshine - shining Shrine shimmering - as amused Amun swallows showering Semen shards - smiling soaking smelling singing - and activating an art alien. So swallowing spunk Amun activates Art and Amun as Art activated at sein source as a shooting Semen sauce so serving Sun bringing Being birthing being activating Art. Amun attunes Art as abjected above and ahead as a Sublime Semening Stimmung Sensation delirious delicious discharge - dissemenating drenched dasein. As abjected away Amun attunes and attains a Stimmung Sensation of Being as Time as Coming to a Head over Time shooting ahead as a fort-da-ing semening-da-sein sensation Coming over Time out-of-time all the time as a Thing coming all over the Truth: Amun's abjected Sublime Semen - as a Thrusted Thing - as a Coming Over - as a Covering Over - as an Over Coming of Truth - as a Coming Off over Truth - as a Hidden Head - Coming Off: as a jubilate jouissance obelisk ooze Amun'a Aroma Comes to a Head and Announcing: I have Come. And: I can Come a Second Time: I can Come Again and Again and Again. So Amun created God coming over his own abimage in the abimage of Amun he created God and god came in the shape of Shot semen as the Ba being of his Soul and became his Soul by coming as his Soul.
Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait Alex Alien 2006
Amun Comes Ahead of God Comes Before God Comes After God Comes All Over God: - God could not Come - God cannot Come: God cannot Come to a Head: Amun Comes All Over God Sealing God in Semen Silhouette Slime staining God's 'Image' serving 'It' initiated as an Abimage: God is a Silhouette of Amun's abjected Semen stain drying and dying out by Ra's rays. Amun Made God in Semen's Own Image. As an abimage: as abjected and aborted ahead out of time. God is a Trace of Amun's Time to Come. Amun aborts God groinded grounded as a deaded dasein: God Has No Head: God cannot Come to a Head: God cannot give Head: Amun is a Head of God as ahead of God: Amun Beheaded God Coming to a Head. God did not Come: God has not Come: God has no Cum: Amun has Come: Amun is Cum: - Amun has Come to a Head - as an Oozing Obelisk - Pyramid Prick - Tapered Tip - towering torrent thrusting Thoth thrown toward You - Coming to Presence. God cannot Come - God cannot Cum - for God is Nothing: God is Not the Nothing: God is the Originary Nothing - for: God created Nothing - God created out of Nothing - Not Out of the Nothing - Man - and Man is Nothing for God is Nothing - because: God created out of Nothing - God: Nothing out of Nothing - Man: and Nothing comes from Nothing: - for: Nothing comes from God for: God cannot Cum. Who created God? Nothing. Who created Nothing? The Nothing. The Nothing created Nothing for God to be Nothing for Man to be Nothing so that The Nothing could create Time so that The Nothing could create Being so that the Time-Being could Come so that the Being-Time could Come. Nothing does not Matter like God does not Matter like Man does not Matter as a matter-of-fact as a matter-of-being as a matter-of-time - for only The Nothing Matters as a Matter of Being as a Matter of Time and when the time comes for being to become one with the nothing the time does not matter for being no longer mattering-being for what matters for being is the matter of nothing-matter being-without-time.
As Amun's Pointed Pillar Comes to a Head abjecting all over the Sun then the Son Obliterates the Obelisk through the Sun-Ra revealing the Sublime Semening Sunbeam through its thrown Shining Drying out Dasein in the Sun through Time. Time is the Sensation of the Différance of Dasein drying off where Time Becomes the Nothing that drifts and dries out between Being and Sensation. Time Comes into Being through the Thrown Sensation of the Nothing. Semening is the Sensationing of the Nothing as the Coming ahead of abjected Art. Amun's abject sublime semen slime outshoots outshines overshadows the thrown Sun-ra revealing the thrown Being becoming being. Amun is always already Hidden by the Sun's Unhiddeness. But the Eye of Amun's Penis is 'sunlike' like the Sun the Eye of the Penis 'emits' Light like the eye of the I. The Eye of Amun's aiming arising Penis projects 'liquid light' liquidating the Sun Out of Sight as a Coming to Presence of the Being of being overcoming the Orbit of the Other as the Obelisk of the Ather activating Art ahead freed frothed from the thirsting thrusting oozing out Open Eye of Amun's Arising Alluring Aletheia - Colossal Column - Dasein Drill - Ereignis Erection - Helmut Head - Pyramid Peick. God could take Amun's arising twelve-inch-tool so it took Its time to Activating Art ahead. Amun activated Art after Swallowing His Own Semen. Semen Sensation Activated Art: The Thrusted orgasmic Origin of Art arrived arising ahead free from Abeject Amun's oozing Obscene Obelisk as an Amoini Amoun Coming Off of Art coming to a Head projected ahead from the Primal Penis Egg Eye of Our Amun. Art - like Religion - abjects-ahead forth from the Semen of the Sacred to the Sun Ra as Ammon Ra activating Art - throwing Thoth - abjecting ahead the God of Art. Thoth - as The Coming to a Head of Art is The Movement and The Moment of True Sensation as an activated Angoisse and Anxiety about The Nothing: "Anxiety reveals the Nothing. We 'hover' in anxiety. More precisely, anxiety leaves us hanging because it induces the slipping away of being as a whole...The nothing reveals itself in anxiety" (Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?, 1929). The Nothing reveals itself in Art. With Art - as an activated angoisse and anxiety abjectivity - we are all: "being held out into the nothing."
Art is the Being of The Nothing. Being Art Belongs to The Nothing. Art does not Belong to Man - Art is not Man Made - Art is Amun Activated - Art is abjected as an abther as the Ather as an Ereignis Ejaculation. Art is the Time of the Ather. Art is abther to Man. Art is alien to Man. Art is Alien. Art alien is always doing evil to the human. Art alien essentially ends the human hand. Art alien announces and activates the death of the human as the end of man: And as man aborts alien alights: Man Dies. Alien Lives.
Amun-Amor Self-Portrait A. V. E. Dec 2007
Art is ahead of Man: Art is Presentation: Man is Representation: Amun activated Art as an arising and alluring abimage. Amun - as Art abjected - at source - at shaft - as a shooting Semen sauce - serving Sun serenely - bringing Being - birthing being - activating art. Always already Art is ahead of Man and also Art precedes Man: Art is Presentation: Man is Representation: And Art made man initiated in Arts Abimage: Amun activated Art and making Man made as Arts abimage. Amun as Art activated - as an Abject Sublime slime Semen sensation - spurts Shining shards - soaking serving soaring Sun. Swallowing spunk Amun activated Art as Amun's Abimage and abjected a Head hiding 'the hidden one': Art makes Man Disappear: Art is the Concealment of Man as Unconcealment. Art made Man and Art Unmade Man: Art is the Birth and Death of Man: Art always already survives Man severs Man. Alien Art is the murmuring mourning memory of Mans Deaths. Man is Fictional - Art is Factual: Art is Actual: Art's thrusted thirsty Thingness throws an activated Actuality. Art is the real of Man's unreality: Art is Man's only reality: Man is merely a representation: Art is presentation: Art makes Man present only in order to make Man absent again and again and again as Amun Aroma Amoini Amoun activates an Abject Sublime Semen Sensation sending art adrift and astray Aborted Abroad again and again and again. Art as always already abjected ahead Out-of-the-World comes over time as a Prior-Post-Past as an ancient Absence-Presence present throwing time out of time as a trace of time's traces as timefulness and not timelessness as a trace of time without a trace without a time as a timetrace that cannot be timed that cannot be traced. There is no tracing of the time like there is no telling of the time: there is only the touching of time: sensationing of the sein of time as the being of time as the shining of time as an arting of time as a timing of art as an arting an ather time art as another time art as an ather touching time. Art is not Man Made as Art is Being Made for Art is aborted ahead by Being because Art is Being by Being Art.
Sphinx III 1954 Francis Bacon
Authentic Alien Aten Atta Art as an abjected angoisse Aleatoric Alétheia adrenalin awe arrives as split spilt scape spume Spunk Sensationism inked initiation always already as an abcape of an abspace ofan abtime as abhistoric as abconceptual as abpolitical: authentic Aten atta Alien art as a Thrown Thoth Sensation sent ahead and away - is indeed initiated - out-of-time - all the time not-in-time - so an authentic alien art could never be anything so 'human' and 'conscious' as being 'contemporary' or as being 'conceptual' or as being 'political' as such crass conscious constructs are the puerile products of the thick They who have no 'instinct' have no 'animal' have no 'alien' and have no 'sensation' - that is - the They have no 'alienality' and are tragically trapped in the evil banality of the brain-being of being bored-by-time-thinking-in-time: throwing those meaningless minutes - particular pastimes of our the They sadly soaked in inauthentic being and inauthentic time all the time never telling-the-time but always tolling-the-time. We need to stop 'Thinking' and start 'Sensationing': forget the 'political' the 'conceptual' the' contemporary' for they are all ended eggsited extinct. To repeat: don't think, but sensation. The thrown spilt splendour of oozed scintillating Schein Sein Sensation surpasses supersedes suspends severs splits Thinking thoroughly: thinking cannot think sensation because sensation survives surfaces seeps slips through thinking since sensation cannot be known only shown, only shone, only thrown, through our orbiting sown seven senses wetted which waits an awakening available to tingling time. If 'man' is to find 'his' way once again into the nearness of Being 'he' must first learn to exist in the sensation of the nothing as an awesome alien aura again oozed outside our old thrown throttled thinking. As an Arsinoe arising at atta Aten Beingsensation becomes Becomingalien again as an attanining attuning anamnesis amnesia Amun after Arsinoe.
Osis Osiris Portrait of M.V.E A.V.E March 2009
Sensationing Being, Will to Sensation, as Eternal Return, sensationing the most difficult sensation of philosophy, means sensationing Being as Time. The Will to Power as Art arrives after the Will to Power as Sensation and the Will to Power as Sensation is the Essence of the Eternal Return as the Eternal Return sensations Being as an affirmation of Being-towards-Art as Becoming Sensation. Thus the Eternal Return of an atta Aten Art arising Arsinoe imaging is not scientific but sensatific - scenting and sending - and assigning-attuning an alien apparition-appearance - as alien artefacts freshly foaming forged-froth-formed forth- as a pure-pulsating shining-sheen - as a radiating-ray - as a darkening-lightening - letting leaking Alien Being beam bright by Beheading dreaded Dasein dead decapitating Dalien beheaded before being Becoming Amun and arising ahead as Alien Being. Amun is always already Coming ahead coming to a Head: Alien is Coming: a Head. Amun comes to a Head above His Head so hence has no Question to Answer only Sensation to Give as the Gift of Sent Semen as an Auto Action and Creation castrating conception: therefore for abjected Amun there can be no 'meaning of being' only a 'semening of being' as a 'sensationing of semening' - as a jettisoned juice - birthing being - abjecting ahead - as an amoini amoun - an Alien. Amun aims ahead as Amun comes in Ra - Amun comes inside Ra - becoming Amun-Ra - for the Sun Ra is the Mouth of Moon - for Ra is the Mouth that Swallows the Semen of Amun - and Amun Comes all over again all over Thoth - turning Thoth all white and all wet - lit and luminous - becoming the Face of the Moon - wet with Amun's abjected fresh froth facial - soft and serene - wet with a silky sheen - as a schiller shimmer - as an adularescence aura - a monocle milky moonstone - leaking lunar lamella lather liquid light. The Thoth-Moon moods the movement of the Tides of Time - as the Tides of Thoth - as the Time of Thoth -as a Sea of Semen - as Sein of Semen - throwing Thoth to and Thoth - to and fro - as a frothy fort-da-foaming fro - forever coming to care - forever coming to caress - coming over the face of the shore - coming over the time of being - soaking up sein - soaking up zeit - soaking up sein und zeit - sucking up sein und zeit - sucking off sein und zeit - then spat back in to the sea of sein - then spat back in to the sea of zeit - back to the sea of being - back to the sea of becoming - going back and thoth - going back and forth - back and thoth - back and froth - back and forth - back and froth - ad-infinitum and ab-infinitum - and so forth and so froth - and so froth and so forth - and so on and so off - and so off - and so on - on and so - so and on - so and so - on and on - and so and - and on and - off and off - and off and - an of an - of an of - o - f - a - o -
Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait A. V. E. 2006
Yet Alien - what is Alien? Alien is Alien and also as alien as Alien is Amun. Alien as Altar. Alien as Above. Alien as Alter as after as afar as Alien is Ather. How does Alien Originate? Art Lets Alien Originate. How Does Art Let Alien Originate? As Amun. As Ather. As Altar. As Ather Alien Art lets leak as altarity as aletrity as an attuned and attained shape-shifting semening sensation sending Semen-da-Sein fort-da-ing Divine Masturbation making man. As abjected ahead Amun allows Alien abjectivity arriving as alien Art. As abjected ahead the Origin of Art never Comes to a Head: Amun as Origin of Art is always already Coming to a Head. Yet Bacon - what is Bacon? Bacon is the Eldest Son of Alien As the Father of Art Bacon is the Son of Alien and the Moon of Amun-Ra. As an Amun abjection Thoth was Thrown forth from Foam leaked like a Milky Way a Milky Moon out of abjected Amun's arising Oozing Obelisk becoming the Sun of the Semen coming over the Milk of the Moon. Then Thoth Comes Over an Ather: Amun - as Thoth eclipses Ra eclipsing Amun. One Day when while Alien Amun Ra radiated shooting Semen all over the Sky He said: "Bring Me Thoth - Bring Me Bull - Bring Me Bacon": As Thoth Comes to a Head He Comes Over Aumn and Hides Amun as Moon Eclipses Sun - Thoth Eclipses Amun - Bacon eclipses Alien: Bacon beams: "I am Thoth, the Eldest Sun of Ra: I Come before Ra - I Come after Amun. I Cover Ra. I Eclipse Alien. I Come Art." Amun as always Absent and Hidden though Thoth as Night never Present. Thoth Hides the Hidden Amun announcing: "Knower of the Hidden and the Alienfest! the Great! the most High! Alien to Him is that alien among You who Hides His arresting Art as the Nothing of the Night and Comes forth Frothing arising Art at the Coming of the Day." Amun Hides in the Hand of Thoth and Thoth throws Amun ahead for Thoth is the Handed One as Amun is the Hidden One and Thoth throws Amun ahead and aborting an Alien a Head of Time as an alien-time ahead of human-time all-the-time not-in-time for the time-being of the being-time but the coming-time that comes when you are all always already dead to da-sein and time-alien.
Ra-Horakhty Ra-Horus of the Two Horizons
As a slimy slippery semening substance coming to ahead without a head the thrown severed subject is initially abjected as always already alien to itself being burst out itself as an alien ather and not the other: for Slavoj Zizek's subjugated subject is always already 'already alien' where the human hides the inhuman in the Name of the Law of the Ather. The severed subject is always already a shuttered-shattered subject of misrecognition and misidentification taking 'itself' to 'being human' - to being a 'human being' - when it is - in brute-fact - in brute-real - reality: 'the nothing': the nothing-of-the-kind: nothing of the human-kind: an alien kind: an ather kind. We are even alien to ourselves as we cannot touch ourselves we cannot tickle ourselves - as the ather kind can: as Sam Neil says: "We're all aliens." We are all alien-stuff. We only ape at being ape - we only mime at being man: as Adorno added: "The human is indissolubly linked with imitation: a human being only becomes human at all by imitating other human beings." (Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia; Reflections From Damaged Life, 1947). Why imitate being human at all? Why mime being man? Why not imitate being iguana? Why not all act as an ant - act as an antelope - act as an anaconda - act as an alligator - act as an allosaurous - act as an alien? The human being is a forgetting of being alien of being ather. Why mime a mono-identity? - why not mime multiple-identities? The thrown terminating terrorist travels through multiple mutations initiating identities: why only have one-identity anyway? No one has one-identity anyway - as we are all shape-shifting aliens - anyway. No one has any identity anyway so how can you have an 'identity'? How can you have an 'identity card' - How can you have 'identity papers'? You cannot. You have absolutely nothing to identify yourself with but the nothing. You have no identity. You have no name for your name is never your own one. Why have a name anyway? What's in a name anyway? What's out a name anyway? The Name Hides the Nothing: there is nothing to the name: there is nothing in the name. Our Society of Surveillance seeks-out the single-signature of our mono-man. Mainly 'Man' seeks 'Separation' not 'Unity' as 'Man' leaks lamella leftovers drooling dreary dasein as monstrous 'Man' is 'Holier than Thou' filled full of holes emptying out a nothing endlessly emptying out a nothing as a nothing that is not there as 'Man' is the 'holeholder' of Nothing at All but Being is the 'wholeholder' of the Nothing All for mad Man hunts out being as a hole yet the Nothing hunts out being as a whole and the alien betweens being the hole the whole being being between being the human and non-human but alien to being human being which is being without being without being alien.
Immanent Imeut Self-Portrait A.V.E 5.10. 2009
Attuning Atta Aten Alien Bacon Beingtime bleeds bubbles boils glitters glistens glows soaks shines shudders slivers sensation forth froth foam forever. Leaking lamella language ooze of alien being does to 'speak' but 'senses': 'authentialienart', like authentic auratic alien leaked language, says so essentially 'no-thing:' for ' it' does not 'speak' to you; it 'says' no-thing to you. Authentic (alien) Art and Authentic (alien) 'language' has nothing to 'say' to you but sends 'sensations' to you. An authentic alien aesthetics discloses dank drool abaesthetic alienation that throws the light leaked off-on authentic alien being as becoming towards shining truth. An authentic alien abaesthetics discloses drooling aestheic alienation at the movement of the mourning of the monument of the death of the human. An authentic abaesthetic alienation as an alien abaesthetics announces the 'truth' of the alien and the 'lie' of man where authentic alien art displaces inauthentic human art. A 'human' art is alienated from a 'truth': an 'alien' art is the thrown 'truth' as an authentic alienation-wetness where thrown to be bled alienated is instead initially instinctively to be 'true' to the 'truth' of 'being alien' as a bled 'becoming' alien as an atta abject authentic alien art always already away all the time outside the no-time of the post-human. An authentic auratic aroma alien art awe always already cuttered cannot be born contemporary for the alien has no time of the human: to be human is to be in time to be alien is to be out of time. An angoisse authentic auratic Arsinoe aroma atta Aten alien art is not made in 'time' not made by 'man'. An angoisse authentic auratic aroma atta Aten Alien art always already assigns Arsinoe at the End of Time the End of Man. The End of Man is the Sensationing of Being: Alien is at the End of the Thinking of Being: the Ending of Man is. The Nature of Alien Being is Named as Sensationing: a single Word worlding the Essence of Alien Being. As an Alliance of Sensation and Being - the Proper Name being Sensationing: Being being Spunked scent sent always and everywhere engulfing the Nothing and the nowhere thrown throughout the something Sensationing as the Becoming of the Sensationing of Alien Being being born again as alien Alexander - Akhnaton - Atum - Atta - Amun - Anubi - Anunnaki alienationing. Alien Being is not the Origin of the Human Being: all being is alien always already as a forgetting and fogging of the alien: Alienism is not a Humanism and Alienism is not a radical response to the crass 'crisis' of Humanism: a Humanism (en)crypts an Alienism. Also an Aliemism as an eggism eclipses and erases a Humanism as the essence of humanism is metaphysical whilst the eggence of alienism is metasensical since sensationism is as always already bred being before and attuned and attained away after melted man making mediated meandering metaphysics meaningless. Philosophy is and remains for us a thing of the past by being a being for the future. Art is and remains for us a being of the future by being an alien future.
Amun-Ra Self-Portrait 2003 A.V. E.
Attaining atta Aten attuning an alluring agile altaric alteric 'alien alienist art' aroma Amun awe arrives at atta after annihilating 'aesthetics' and art 'man made'. You must both all three of you of course always already remember and not forget that 'great art' is 'alien made ' - not 'man made'. Alien art - as non-conceptual is - as Heidegger hears - thrown "out of the realm of the ordinary" into the alien abject abyss now negating an alien aesthetics altogether. As non-contemporary authentic Aletheia alien art aroma is Thrown out of time all the time and is thus not in the now as Heidegger heaves: "Truth is never gathered from objects that are present and ordinary. Rather, the opening up of the Open, and the clearing of what is, happens only as the openness is projected, sketched out, that makes its advent in throwness." (Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, Harper & Row 1971). An Aletheia alien Aten atta Art can never be 'conceptual' or 'contemporary' or 'political' or 'temporal' as 'it' is primordially projected thrusted throwness outside conception outside consciousness outside time all the time as the thrown spiralling sensation of the Eternal Return. To be alien again is to be eternally Thrown out-of-time all the time as the thrown thrustness of the Eternal Return without Beginning without Ending: the thrown Universe as an Undoing has no Beginning has no Ending but Becoming as an Eternal Return reaffirming Being becoming Time in-out-of-it-no-self where we Become being Time all the time out-of-time out-of-space as a Becmingbeingsensation. The thrown Sensationing of the Nothing as a being Becoming-behind as always already ahead-before big-bang beginnings sow - so bang goes the 'big bang theory' as our oozed Universe was always already a thrusted-throwness operating out off of leaked levels of orbiting Sensationing Differance. Time has no time to begin to end but to Become as Time is out-of-time out-of-space out-of-being being there no Beginning being there no Endings but being Becoming as an Eternal Return where Time and Space are the positive Nothing of Sensationing. Sensationing started shining Being before big Banging began Becoming. Eternal Recurrence as a Radical Differance delivers the Thrown Sensationing of Beingtimespace being thrown forth from out-of-oneself. The Sensational Possibility of Life in the Mind of Someone Dead! The Eternal Recurrence! The Eternal Recurrence of the Sensation! Where the Self Becomes Sensational Reincarnation through thrown time as a sensational revolving sphere. The thrown Sensation of Time of the Eternal Recurrence cannot be 'timed' by an irrational 'logical time' (commonsense clock-time) of an Aristotelian trapped temporality as the Time Sensation of the Eternal Recurrence of Amun as an Arting alien initiated is always already an angxt annexed Anaximandian anointed as abjointed: - 'out-of-joint' - as 'out-of-sync' - thrown 'out-of-sein' - thrown 'out-of-time' - all the time - not in time - time in not - time and again - afar and away - again and time - away and afar - time and time - afar and afar - again and again - afar and again.
Alluminating Amun Self-Portrait Alex Alien 2005
Exiled thrown Thoth-Bacon and navigating Nietzsche and homing Heidegger exited and experienced the Ereignis of the Beingtimesensation of the Eternal Return of the Throw: as Nietzsche threw it: "where I really was" - "outside my centre" and where Bacon-Thoth threw it: at the canvas outside himself - outside his centre. By Throwing the Eternal Return outside of one's being one Becomes one's Historical Totality of Sensations that the Body filters in-out of Life. Thus the Dead Body leaks life: Releasing this Historical Totality of Sensations as the Eternal Return ad-infinitum: returning, repeating rehearsing reeling as a Freudian fort-da-fluxing forever. The Totality of the World is the Totality of Sensations as a Constant Becoming threw throwing and retrieving as Being the Eternal Return all the time. For Freud threw the psychoanalytical sensation of the Eternal Recurrence as a foamy Fort-da-Fluxing where wet the thrust of the throwing registers registers the sensation state of the psyche. Blanchot sensations Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence as Fort-da-Fluxing where Time is "an infinite game with two openings (given as one, and yet never unified): future always already past, past always still to come, from which the third instance, the instance of presence, excluding itself, would exclude any possibility of identity." (Maurice Blanchot, The Step Not Beyond, Sunny Press, 1992). For Heidegger - Bacon - Bataille - Blanchot - Beckett as well as for Freud and Nietzsche - the Eternal Return of the Throw is a 'game of chance' - without 'meaning or aim' - yet 'recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness' - by being Thrown out - into the thick thingness of the Nothing - as being time - ahead of the game - agame of the head - as an Eternal Return of the Dice of Dasein - as an Eternal Return of the Throw of Thoth - throwing the Eternal Return of the Alien.
The Thoth Thrown atta Aten alien artist is never situated at a particular point 'in time' but becomes behead and ahead of all time all the time: leaked life frozen from froth foam for the atta altaric alien artist as an activated anxiety is initiated ahead as an angoisse as a fort-da-fluxing fatiguing forgetting future-past-present being thrown out-of-time out-of-joint all the time. An authentic angoisse angst alien artist as an atta Aten Anaximandrian as anyway always already out-of-joint out-of-time all the time cannot be contemporary cannot be conceptual cannot be conscious for the authentic angoisse Alien Artist exists in another time as the time of the Eternal Recurrence: the between-time of the no-now never on-time always already of the too late of the too early all the time out-of-time as an Eternal Becoming turning back-forward on-off out-in of-off itself all the time not in time. The Eternal Recurrence of the Semening Sensations is wet where the Totality comes Thrown back Eternally into-out itself. The Will to Sensation - the Alien of Beings - as constantly Becoming as Eternal Recurrence becoming is the Eternal Recurrence being the Sensation of sensations rebounding reborning rebeing again and again where the World is the Will to Sensation and Nothing besides that! And you yourselves are also this Will to Sensation - and nothing besides that! Said simply: - sensationing is the sensationing of being. At the same time sensation is the time of sensation of being sensation at the same time - time sensationing is the sensationing of being insofar as sensationing - belonging to being and time as such - listens to it as a tuning turning towards the sensation as time that in time comes to shine as the sensation of being time for the being that time has taken away from being by becoming being time for all the time to shine to shine for a time without time for when one comes to shine one no longer needs time for those with the shine survive the time to become being and shine without being and time which belongs to being body but being belongs to time without the time without the time that was the time of the body for the body for being body for being the time for in time one becomes being-time which is being-time-being as being without body.
Shimmering-Sensation elf-Portrait 2005 Alex Verney-Elliott
The Eternal Return of Amar Amun as Arting Alien can only be Caught in the Moment and Movement as a Becoming off-of an Authentic Sensationing of Time always already re-remembered as Done and Undoing of the Lost Memory of the Future Past always already annihilating the non Now: the non Present. An alien atta Aten Anxiety ooze opens up the gulf gap of the Return Eternally emptying out over the thrown edge as an Eternal Recurrence. The Eternal Recurrence is not a conceptual construct but a particular practice, an engaged event, an articulated action: the Eternal Return of Arting cannot be Thought only Thrown as a Fort-da-Fluxing: the Forgetting of the Human the Forging of the Alien. The Will to Sensation is the Opening of the Thrusting of the Eternal Return of the Throw. An activated atta alien art is the most moist materialised frothy form of the Will to Sensation through throwing ahead an alien head ahead of being and time all the time. The atta alien artist actually becomes the Sensation of the Eternal Return of the Throw through the Will to Sensation by being bred as Bacon would have stated: "as a pulping pulverising machine" fuck-filtering vision-vectoring severe-screening form-faceting image-initiating shining shimmering sensuous sensations. The alien artist of Beingsensationtime of the Eternal Return of the Throw has to always already eggsist in the Open Groundless raw region Spunked State of angoisse Anxiety. To be an atta authentic alien artist one has to be always already activated as aborted by being-the-not-there by being-the-not-at-all initiated in an actual severed State off-of constant collapsing angoisse Anxiety and dasein Dread - as a way to shed and shred the self from itself out itself - as a raw radically forged forgetting of humanbeingtime - thrown into the black being hole of Becoming the Nothing as the Sensationbeingtime of the Eternal Return of the Throw: to throw is know the nothing whole of the hole which is being whole with the nothing not there everywhere whole to which we all throw ourselves hole.
Aumn-Amen Self-Portrait A.V.E. 29.11.10
Aumn-Amen Self-Portrait A.V.E. 29.11.10
What then is the act and art of Sensationing? Forgetting intellect Forging instinct Becoming alien Annihilating human and thus the cutting off of concepts throwing off of thinking sowing subterranean subconscious spunking sensationing. The Founding of Metaphysics was Forged and Fucked on the Forgetting of Spunking by brining Thinking thrusted which displaced dried denied Spunking's shining-sheening-sensationing. Spunking Sensationing - as a Metaphysical Memorial as a Metaphysical Metaphor a Metaphysical Metre a Metaphysical Meteorite - has been sidelined silenced soaked up in the his History of Metaphysics in the his History of Philosophy in the History of Being and ditched dried out as damp Dasein denying drooling dripping - and annihilating an amuning artistic aroma - and severing the semening sensation of time. We can no longer 'taste the time' - no longer 'smell the time' - no longer 'see the time' - so try to 'tell the time'. Yet only 'time can tell'- only time can tell the time of art: - as art is the sensation of time - as time is the sensation of art: only time tells about art not the cunt critics: "Because time is the only great critic...I think that only time tells about painting.... I think that the potency of the image is created partly by the possibility of its enduring. And, of course, images accumulate sensation around themselves the longer they endure." (Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987): only time tells about art as art tells the time - as the art is the time - as art is the time of the artist - as the time of the arther: the artist is the time of arther: the artist is the time of arting - as the sensation of arting - as the sensation of timing - as the sensationing of time: - as the shining of time - as the sheening of time - as the shimmering of time - as the shuddering of time: - :and all the time: another sensation - another time - another take: taking time the time taking time taking no time all the time the no time the time no not now not time all the not now and the not now is the no time of art for art has not time to be for time but takes time to take time away from being art for art becomes art only when the time has been taken away from being there for art is only there where there is no time being there.
Amun Amen Self-Portrait 2001 Alex Alien
We cannot 'tell the time' because the Time 'cannot be told' because Time is always already 'untold' out-of-time all the time not-in-time: time cannot be told - time can be sensationed: Time is the Sensation of Being. Time cannot be timed because Time is the Sensation of pure dice différance leaking out at different degrees of oozed-out dripping drips. Time cannot be Known only Thrown so you cannot 'have the time' you cannot 'tell the time'. To Become the Eternal Return we all have to 'forget what the time is' and to forget 'what one's time is' by willing a throwing off of being in and on time all the time being not in time out of time all the time as there is no Time like the present only a Time outside of the time of being simply and purely: no-time at all apart from an alientime all the time as the Radical Forgetting of Time is the Alien Being of the Eternal Recurrence of the Nothing of Beingsensation as Time does not exist 'in-itself' only out of orbit out of space out-of-time. You cannot 'ask for the time' and time asks nothing of you. You cannot ask 'what is the time'. The Time is not. The Time is The Nothing taking care of itself for Nothing for the Time Being. For the Time Being Time is a Thing Being. Time is a Being. Time is a Thing. Time is a Mood Thing. Time is a Mood. Time is Being in a Mood. Music is the Mood of the Time of Man being thrust out of time all the time. Music is the Mood of Being out of Time. Time is out of Time with Music. For Music Time is not Time - Time is a Mood and Being-in-a-Mood of Forgetting the Time all the time not in time. With Music we are thrown outside the Concept and thrown inside the Nothing: "In listening to music we do not apprehend a 'something', but are without concepts." ((Emmanuel Lévinas). In Music we are Listening to the Nothing of the Now and the Time of the Nothing outside of the Time of the Subject as the Time of the Anxiety as the Time of the Ather. Anxiety reveals the Nothing there of Time as Anxiety in the Face of the Ather. Anxiety - man's melting mooding - there is 'nothing to it' - and one wonders and wanders 'about the nothing' that is there and one worries 'about nothing' - iindeed: the Nothing itself - as such - was there - as time-being out-of-itself. Art alien - as nothing-at-all and all-about-nothing-at-al - as an angoisse anxiety - reveals and releases the Nothing that is There: the mooding-senstioning of Being-out-of-the-World hanging-hovering as abjected ahead of one's self severed as a drained dasein. Art is a Thing. Art is a Mood Thing for Bacon: "I want a record of an image. And with the record of the image, of course, comes a mood, because you can't make an image without creating a mood." (Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987).
For Heidegger the Mindless mood of Anxiety activates ahead the Abimage of the Nothing: "With the fundamental mood of anxiety we have arrived at that occurrence in human existence in which the nothing is revealed." (Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics? 1929). The Nothing is Revealed as the Nothing that is All happening ahead of Being. Being is revealed in The Nothing ahead of Death where Being happens ahead as Time.
The Arriving of Amun-Re 2005 A.V.E.
Alien Arvo Pärt’s Frates, Tabula Rasa, Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten decapitate and derail our 'commonsense' experience of 'clock-time' as a continuum where the sound of time - as a ticking time second by second - becomes broken and silenced by the severing sounds and splicing silences: here time simply cannot get started and sounds simply get no where – only sound-silences – only sound-nothingness – hearing the nothing at hand here makes sense and gives a sense of time. Here time as 'silenced' is ‘out of time’ with'‘clock-time' and undoes itself by imploding upon itself never beginning and never ending giving us the sensation of static time all the time (being thrown out of time). The mesmerising music also gives us the strange sensation of being ‘about nothing’ at all – about the beautiful boredom of nothingness – of being bathed in nothingness of being about being nothing at all - and going nowhere and getting nowhere and never beginning as never ending and never being in time but all the time out of time. Allan Pettersson's Symphony No.7 (1966-67), Symphony No. 8 (1968-69), Symphony No. 9 (1970) deliver to the subject the severing sensation of dread-time as dead-time and again being 'about nothing' and the beautiful boredom of the nothing - and the delightful dread of the nothing there - throwing 'being-out-itself' where the subject is severed by the silent-sound of ostracized sounds-silences of the no-time at all. Mesmerising music throws being-in-itself out-itself out-of-time by being thrown ahead in time out of time all the time not in time. And as we well know by now 'being-in-itself' does not actually exist and always already remains removed: dead-dormant: utterly unavailable - until shot shone shattering shuddering Sensation illuminates 'it' through thrusted Throwness as a shining shimmering being by Becoming: so sown Sensation sets fire sets froth forth to trap blank Being being bled born bare by the Thrown Being being but born of an Alien Becoming brought by setting Sensation shining. Being cums to Presence out of Sensation shot shining out of dead Darkness leaking luminous Lightening activating Amun as an auratic atta Aten alien Aletheia aroma art making mooding music move man Out of Time all the time as another Alien ather abtime throwing Thoth through.
Finite-Fear Self-Portrait A.V.E. 6.8.2012
Sensationing being throws towards Being as a Totality of Sensationing as an Essence of the being of Being sensesssencing. The Truth of the Shine of Being is shone as a sensessence as beings have their essence as sensations where the body breeds and seeds sown sensationings throwing the eternal return reel retrieving rethrowing resensationing sensations where the Eternal Return is the Sensation of sensations as the Schein essence of being of Being as an alighting Aten. Since the beginning of modern times philosophy entrenches itself in the effort to grasp Being by means of Thinking and this was - and still is - the Error for Being the Ereignis of Being can only ever be Grasped and Gathered by being Ground up so sending Sensationing and by Thoth throwing Thinking thrown out of Osiris orbit out of Order.
The Truth is Sensation(ed) outside the fort-da of 'Thinking' and 'Intellect' which are always alien to the Sensationing of Truth and the Being of Time. Sensation is The Truth of Being: but One - simply and purely - cannot 'know it' via 'Knowledge' or 'Thought' or 'Intellect' which severe sensation from the subconscious body of being. The Truth is not a Thing of 'Knowledge' or 'Thinking' or 'Intellect' or 'Language' but of a primordial pulling presence of an amazing scintillating Shining Sensation as a mesmerising Mooding. In the Beginning was the Mood and the Mood was with Man and the Mood was Man. The Man Threw the Mood of Being. Mood and Man. Mood Man. Mooding Man. Man Mooded before Man Worded. Mood came before Word. Mooding began before Thinking. Anxiety activated metaphysical mooding throwing Thinking thawed. Mooding preceded Thinikng as Dwelling preceded Writing for Mooding set the scape of Thinking and Dwelling set the scene of Writing - since Sensationing preceded Speaking - so Mooding, Dwelling, Sensationing set the scenescape for forthing through Thinking, Writing, Speaking. A Mooding is not a Meaning: mood does not mean. A mooding is a melting moving moment off of activated alluring aliquid angoisse anxiety always away and ahead beheading being: mood has no meaning as man has no meaning: man has a mooding not a meaning: the subject signifies nothing at all yet man desires signification yet man desires meaning man has no meaning at all.
Amar Amun Self Portrait 2006 Alex Alien
Melting metaphysical mooding made hallucinating Heraclitus let leak the Light of Thought through thrown Thinking thus Thing Came to Light through sown Sensationing as a metaphysical mooding. We have all long Forgotten that the Origin of Thinking was lit in the Shining of Sensationing and the Murmuring of Mooding. Now Thinking has Come to its Ending so Sensationing has to Come to its Beginning. How do you all Sensation about Thinking when Thinking has Become its Ending? The Ending of Philosophy initiates instigates invites the Becoming of Sensationing: Endings are always already ahead attuned attending Beginnings as a Becoming as Heraclitus has 'it': "What was scattered - gathers. What was gathered - blows apart - The way up is the way back - The beginning is the end. - " (Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus, Viking Penguin 2001). Sensationing is the Eternal Return of Presencing between Ending and Beginning as a Becoming of Sensationing. An Ending is not only a Beginning but always already about a Becoming again and again and again as the End of Philosophy and the Start of Sensationing. Sensationing is indeed Unthinking Philosophising. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to sensation it. Philosophising has since forgotten Sensationing.
In the final and highest instance there is no other Being than Sensationing. Sensationing is Primal Being, and to it [Sensationing] along all the predicates of the same [primal Being] apply: absence of conditions; eternity; independence from time; self-affirmation. All philosophy strives solely in order to find this supreme Sensation. Sensationing is True to Being. The Essence of Truth reveals itself as Sensation. Being is sensation, it does not have a sensation. The Truth of Being is Sensation: In Sensationing Dasein. Dasein Sensations The Truth. In Pure Sensation the Truth Shines. There the Truth Shines. The Truth is a Shining. The Truth is a Shining of Being. The Truth is a Shining of being as Sensationing. The Truth Shines Being Sensation yet not all beings shine: not all beings sensation: not all beings have 'the shine' of being. Only those that sensation 'the shine' of being have the Sensation Truth of Being. Being Sensation is The Shining of the The Truth of Being. Shining shines the thrown being of Beings. The Truth is solely selected to The Shining. To Those that Shine The Truth Shines. Some shine some don't. The Sein comes to Shine Through a Susceptibility to Sensationing Sein not through Thinking There about anything at all. Shining is the overcoming of concepts as an abject Thinking about the Nothing that is There.
See how the beautiful Blue Morpho butterfly Shines its iridescent Shimmering sparkling wings whilst Flying toward the Sun and Sky!
Do you have The Shine? Do you have The Truth? The Truth is Out There! Shining! Flying towards the Sun and the Sky Burning Bright!
Being makes its Presence felt through the Shimmer of the Shine! The Bright of the Burning. Flying towards you all as a Shining Sein!
Can you See into your Sein? Can you See into your Shine? Only by being Blinded by the Shine of Sein can you See the Sein of Shine!
Neanderthal Head from Loire at La Roche-Cotard
Hearing Heidegger sedately Sensationing - unlike Thinking - seeps spilt sowing: 1) Sensationing brings us knowledge as do the sciences; 2) Sensationing produces usable practical wisdom; 3) Sensationing solves cosmic riddles; 4) Sensationing endows us directly with the power to act. And it is fitting that we raise anew the question of the senationing of Being as Beingsensation. Being and Sensationing are necessarily always already infinitely indefinable as a sensationing and Being are not 'concepts' or products of 'thought' but bled bare fluxings flutterings floatings as the opening sensation of a shining aiming at an alluring awesome alien alterity as Aletheia approaching an authentic Aten atta alien art as activated outside of our thought thinking thrust through the Nothing that is the There Is of the Nothing There.
Heidegger's Philosophy was alienist to its innermost core. Heidegger's 'Philosophy of Being' - being pre-Platonic - penetrated Primordial Being as an alienist shining sensationing by-passing pre-dating thrown-thinking language leaking where the wrong 'Question of Being' had always already been answered as an alienist 'Sensation of Being' before 'being human' housed being as a 'House of Language'. The thrown Answer of Being is Alien being aborted outside the House of Being. So sown seeping shuddering-shimmering Sensationing swallows up under the Ground for Sensationing is never Grounded Geist floating free from Foundation free from Logic free from Concept free from Thinking thrown through thrusted Thingness leaving language leaked left behind being free for being the Nothing that is free from Logic free from Concept free from Thought free for the time-being of the being-nothing that is the time-being of Sensationing.
Portrait of M.V.E as Ra January 2008 Alex Alien
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a Non-Sense of Lie-Logic. Wittgenstein wrote wittingly: “The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said." Except that nothing can be said only sensationed and nothing is said in the Tractatus. Wittgenstein wriggles: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way he who understands me finally recognises them as senseless...Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
The trash Tractatus silences Sensationism and does not Speak or Sensation seeing Logic as Nonsensical for Wittgenstein's sentences seep no known Sensationism so sowing language without leakage, sentences without spillages words without waste. Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be sensation. The Tractatus touts totalising positivistic propositions so sensationing nothing negating surplus spillage slurp slime stuff such as an alluring angoisse luminously leaked lamella. In logic nothing is accidental - in reality all is accidental - nothing is accidental - the nothing is an accident happening - for nothing happens - for the nothing always happens.
The world is the totality of things - thrown things - the totality of sensations - the world divides into sensations - the world is determined by the sensations - the totality of sensations and by their being all the nothing - at all - sensation of the nothing all - at all - as abjects and all objects contain the possibility of all sensations and the nothing at all. Space - Time - Being (being sensations) are actual forms of Sensationings of the Nothing There that is the time-being of sensations being-time.
Wittgenstein shows us all that the puerile propositions of the turgid Tractatus are as pure non-sensationist schema where welded leaden Logic is inert left locked-in-its-left-out nothingness negating the thrown stagnant smelliness sown seeping sensational slipping slime states. For filtered locked Logic does not leak: does not: shimmer - shudder - shine - smaze - stink - soak - spray - spume - spunk: logic left lacking a leaking luring Shining - as a sent Sensationism scent - so lost lie Logic has no 'Logic of Sensationism' - logic has no leakic - . Logical images cannot depict the world. Logic is not a mirror-image of the World. Logic is not Transcendental. Logic is not Senscendental. Life has no logic. Being has no Logic. Sensation has no logic - Sensation has a leakic - its leaks all over you all - like life leaks - like being leaks - like time leaks - like love leaks.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s thwarted thesis that a sensation must form some sort of 'picture' in order to have 'significance' - and that a 'pure sensation' correspondence to 'nothing' in our experience - is non-sense and absolutely absurd and utterly untrue since sown sensation slits sight splits seeing punctures perception pulverises pictures. The Nothing is - as aborted-out-of-itself - as an Absolute Sensation - The Pure Sensation of The Nothing: The Time of Sensation. What Place is the Pure of Sensation of the Nothing situated and sensationed - as an activated Action? An AbImage abjects as an initiated image - imaging the Nothing - pulverising the Picture - thrown thoth through shuddering shimmering shining sensationing: Blanchot breathes:
"The image, capable of negating nothingness, is also the gaze of nothingness on us. The image is light, and nothingness is immensely heavy. the image shines and nothingness is the diffuse thickness where nothing reveals itself. The image is the crack, the mark of this black sun, the tear, which, under the appearance of the dazzling burst, gives us the negative of the inexhaustible negative depth. That is why the image seems so profound and so empty, so threatening and so attractive, always rich in more senses than we lend it and also poor, void and silent, because in it advances this dark impotence, deprived of mastery, which is that of death as recommencement." (Maurice Blanchot, L'Amitié, Gallimard: 1971).
Sensation - as The Being Time of The Nothing - is the thrown Pure Experience par excellence: 'signification' and 'conception' is always already added after the Event of thrown Pure Sensation: only social and psychic conditioning sutures significance to sensation but robs it of its brute and pure sensationistic impact: when an infant smells, sees and even eats 'its' own excrement none of its seven senses tell 'it' that it is supposedly repellent and repugnant. Through cultural signification and suturing, the smell sensation of Chanel No.5 is smelt as 'acceptable' and 'good' and the smell sensation of shit is smelt as 'unacceptable' and 'bad': our social-psychic conditioning could also reverse these two smell sensations where scent becomes shit and shit becomes scent but the sensations still remain the same smelly shat thing.
Logic does not Smell, Logic does not Smaze, Logic does not Sweat, Logic does not Spunk, Logic does not Sponge, Logic does not Squelch, Logic does not Shit, Logic does not Shine, Logic does not Bubble, Logic does not Burn, Logic does not Curdle, Logic does not Coagulate, Logic does not Glisten, Logic does not Drool, Logic does not Drip, Logic does not Leak: Logic does not Exist. Logic knows nothing of The Nothing. The Sensation of The Nothing leaks outside the nothing of Logic. Nietzsche on Nihilism contra Logic: "Nihilism doe snot only contemplate the 'in vain!' nor is it merely the belief that everything deserves to perish: one helps to destroy. - This is, if you will, illogical; but the nihilist does not believe that one needs to be logical." (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power). Nihilism negates Logic. Sensation severs Logic. Being beheads Logic. Dasein decapitates Logic. Logic is not: smelly, slimy, sticky, scabby, slithery, oozy, oily, offally, greasy, gritty, grimy, gooey, dank, damp, dewy, jewy, juicy, jelly, jerky.
Amun Death Mask Self Portrait A.V.E 2008
Logic has no Sensation. Logic has no Anxiety. Logic has no Boredom. Logic has no Dread. Logic has no Nothing. Being has no Logic. Being has Nothing - The Nothing. Logic has no Logic - no logic at all. The Logic that One add One equals Two throws Logic out: One is One and cannot be added to another One: One will be One and only One as the same One and not another One. The One knows nothing of the Two that comes after One altogether. As an Image One add One looks like Eleven when One is next to One: nothing is next to one: one is also zero for the one is the nothing: one add one equals naught and naught: one add one equals minus two zeros altogether not together. One is Nothing so nothing can be added to the One. One cannot be added to One. One is its Own. One is its own One and cannot be added to another One. The Logic that One add One equals Two is a false Logic: Logic is false. Logic is a Lie. Being has no Logic. Time has no Logic. The Unconscious has no Logic or Time.
While sensations are necessarily non-cognitive on the conscious plane - and cannot be 'known' - spilt sown sensations can be shown thrown flown forth from the thirsty subconscious stratum and the thrown seventh sense which will always already shine shimmer oozed outside consciousness and alien body of being being bled both from within and without outside thought: sensations cannot be know only thrown for Being is in fact floating flooding bled Beingsensation: one does not 'know' sensation one 'throws' and 'retrieves' sensation through fort-da-fluxing. There is no 'Question of the Meaning of Being' but only the 'Sensationing of Being as Beingsensation' where the sewer subconscious 'alien body' has a direct drooling atta access to a 'pure realm' of sensation free from conceptual consciousness. Being has Sensation not Meaning. Being is not a product of Thoughtness but a Sensation of Throwness. Being has no Intellect. Being has no Consciousness. Being is Alien to Thought. Being is Sensation. Being is Alien. Beingaliensensation: The Life of the Alien.
Portrait of Evert Potgieter A. V. E. 2003
The question "What calls for sensationing" asks for what wants to be sensationed about in the pre-eminent sense: it does not just give us sensationing to sensation about, nor only itself, but it first gives sensation and sensationing to us, it entrusts sensation to us as our essential destiny, and thus first joins and appropriates us to sensation as a clearing to being towards Sensation as Beingsensation being our Senessence.
Our thinking blocks off and out Our ereignis-experiences senessence-sensationing: thought severs pure sensation thought enframes pure sensation thought negates pure sensation for thought forgets all about sensation even when thinking about sensationing as I have the sensation that I think when I am not thinking about sensation so Rene Descartes never stated: "I think, therefore I am" but smelt: "I stink, therefore I am." I sensation therefore I am stinking as I smelt anf felt a sensation of shit pass through the thought of the smell shat forth from the body of sensation thinking about shitting making thought mucky and smelly for one to shit out the smell of thought as a stinking-thinking about shitting-thinking to shit the sensation out shitting thinking out the nothing that is thinking about nothing smelling but shitting sensation without thinking about it being-shit as a diced-dasein dicing-being-turd into being-diced-time forever flushed all-away and aborted-abroad.
Wepwawet-Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E Dec. 2008
Authenticalienart arrivesat SensationBingtime. BeingtowardsDeath is Beingtowardsbecoming Sensation: our Out-of-Body Sensations sow Sensation of Light, Sensation of Love: death does not exist: Sensation Lives. Embodied Ending becomes beginning of our oozed Being Sensation. We don't die but remain bathed in a sea sort of shining shimmering shuddering sensation of light and love. Being Thrown out over to the Horizon of bled Becoming towards Death is Sensation Being-as-Becoming-eternal-Life luminous: lighting lifted looted lingering floating-flying freely defying defeating gravity going going going gone over out over on towards thrown thrust thirsty thymol thrusness terminus terrorist territory to Becomingalienagainandagain as an Eternal Return remembered Real. The Eternal Return of the Afterlife always invokes Differences of Sensation. Difference de-fers De-capitation since Sensation thinks through the Body beyond Be-heading. Be-head-ed-Bod-ily sensations still shine Thrown Thought through despite decapitating Dasein. Difference defies Decapitation since shuddering Sensations still think Thought through the Body beyond Beheading. Being be-headed is the out-of-body experience par excellence. Thus Thinking is Ex-ecuted and Ex-ists Be-yond the Head be-heading dread Da-sein. Being Be-headed is Thinking thrown Ahead of be-ing Human be-coming Alien.
Khonsu-Kenosis Self-Portrait A.V.E Nov. 2008
Why are there Sensations rather than Nothing? One's Embodied-Bodily Sensation is the Shimmering of Being, the Aura of Shining; Sensation is the Aura of Being out of the world. Will to Sensation is allowing aura to Shine Being. Sensationing is the auratic Body's Mode of Being Sensation; authentic alien art, authentic alien being becoming froths forth from the thrown embodied eggo, not ego. Being 'brain dead', being 'body dead', delivers dripping brings breeds Sensation Being into being as sensation. We don't die but become born salted smelting scented sheening Sensations: shimmering shining sparkling as an alluring alien aura as Beingsensation. Ones Be-headed-Bod-ily sensations still shine thrown Thought through de-spite de-capitating Da-sein de-railed dead-ed end-ed ahead as a sensation of being-dead and being-dead is being-ahead of being-there by being the sensation of time be-headed from the sensation of the body: the sensation of true being is being without a body without a body there where we are being sensation as being sensation in itself by being out of body itself and our unconscious is being free from the body as our being dead and ahead of the body as in a dream.
Shuddering-Sensation Self-Portrait A. V. E. 2004
Being is not a product of Thinking. Being is a product of Throwing. Being is a product of Timing. Being is a product of Sensationing. Being is the Shining of Sensation just as Sensation is the shining of being as becoming as shimmering: 'to be and to become' is the question of being towards sensation as sensation towards becoming being sensation. The truth of being shines in the becoming of sensation as levels of sensations as levels of beings as becomings. Beings are realized and revealed and registered as leaked Levels of Sensations as Becomings being never fixed or formed for are as always floating forever forward as a radiating riveting rotating leaked light levels of our oozing spurting soaking shining shimmering smoking smaze sensations.
Throwing breaks open an open Place of Being thrown through the open Space of Sensation opening-out the Origin of Being as the Being of Art. As Origin Art is Activated by breaking-open an Open Sensation sending Art afar and ahead as a a Region of the Real revealing and dealing Decapitated Dasein diced as an ancient alien ather aborted abroad as a being beyond being Being and Time. But Being is always already away and ahead aborted as being-out-of-time thrust through anxiety attacks as the sensation of dying and the dying coming to ahead where time does not exist anymore for being at all where and when sensation of being without time arrives and beheads being from being with time for a time to come. Being with the dying coming decapitates dasein from being in time to being out of time and out of being there for time by being for being for the being that is being thrown towards deathing where being becomes time away from being with being in time there is no sensation of time at all but being.
Francis Bacon, Reece Mews Studio Vogue November 1st 1963
Velázquez and Rembrandt project and push present the presence of Being in beings as aborted and altaric alien beings - but not as a painting of presence - not as a philosophy of presence - leaving logocentrism leaked - but as a dasein of différance - detoured derailed ahead - as a distant derridian deferment defilement - disjoining decapiatated différance - ahead - as a head - headed floating forward - forging forever fort-da darling dasein - daringly delivered as an angoisse activated articulted absencing - arriving alive away and ahead - as a head - attained as an angoisse abjected absent past pushed present - presenting pure presence - past projected afar and ahead - at a distance - at a deference - at a différance. Velázquez and Rembrandt present the différance of presence present pressing ahead a head having annihilated representation: Velázquez and Rembrandt do not represent - Velázquez and Rembrandt present. Velázquez and Rembrandt present the absent present aborted as an abjected dasein dissemblance disseminated dissemenated drenching the sight and the site of the subject stained: severe Velázquez and Rembrandt sever the time of the subject so cannot be seen in time only over-a-time and not in any-old-time or for the-time-being. For the time-being as the time of being Velázquez and Rembrandt serve self portraiture projected for the being-time the being of time.
For Velázquez and Rembrandt being time is a constant presence constantly serving and severing itself out-of-time all the time not-in-time by being-time constantly ahead-of-itself as a-head-of-time for all time and no time for all and for no one at all. Velázquez and Rembrandt present time for the time being as the sensation of the subject of being-in-time since the sensation of time is always already subjective as well as alienative always already absolute abjected absolutely. Velázquez and Rembrandt paint present time for the time-being for the time of the subject to take time for the time-being and the being-time. Velázquez and Rembrandt abject the subject of time out-of-time all the time in-time with being-time becoming time-being for the being-time and for the time-being to come - in time out of time the time to come to being without time - for true being is being without time for all time without time at all and being all..
Amar Amun Self Portrait 2006 Alex Alien Man in Blue VII (Gamal Abdel Nasser)1954 Francis Bacon
Velázquez and Rembrandt present the time for the subject as the time for the present: the present past ahead of itself: for Velázquez and Rembrandt time is not represented for time is not a representation: time cannot be represented only sensationed since time is a sensation for the subject attuned and attained as an art alien activation. Attaining absolute time throws thrusts ahead a head of an attuned absolute art alien attained. As for being painters for Velázquez and Rembrandt the painting of time paints the temporality of painting for the time being being the being of time. For Velázquez and Rembrandt the truth of painting is the painting of time as the time of painting out of time with the time of being for the being time. Velázquez and Rembrandt disperse time dispersing dasein ahead of itself dispensing the time of the subjected disseminated a head of itself dissemenated as a decapitated dasein. For Velázquez and Rembrandt Being & Paint present dasein time for a time adrift and ahead attunened and attained as a moving mooding moment where a mood makes a time a severed sensation of time as a mood of time for a time and for a time being. Time is Nothing but a Mooding and the Nothing gives times its moods. Time is a Real Thing as Time is a Mood Thing to be in and to be thrown out of: dread derails disperses decapitates the time from the time of the subject. Dread takes the Time out of the Subject: Dread - Anxiety - Boredom - the true sensations of being-thrown-out-of-time - steal and suspend the subject from being-in-time becoming out-of-time forth for the Time of the Nothing. Velázquez and Rembrandt suspend the presence of the subject by suspending the time being for the subject by presenting the sensation of suspended time painting presence present and aborted ahead and activated as a mooding moment telling the time. For Velázquez and Rembrandt time is a real thing as time is a material mood: time is made manifest by being in a mood and by being thrown from one mood to another mood from one time to another severing time making time a static sensation sometimes. For Velázquez and Rembrandt time-as-mood thing is always already non-linear as time changes moods cutting itself off of itself as it comes out of its mood: time expands or contracts itself depending on its multiple moods: moreover mood makes the speed of time shift speeds between sensations. Velázquez and Rembrandt attained and attuned an Eternal Throwing of Time as a Fort Da daseining decapitating the time-being ahead of itself for the being-time for the being-of-time as the time-of-being to come and to come all over you all.
What is the Sensationing of all Being? Time is the Sensation of Being. Time as Sensation is the Presentation of the Real Thing - Time Being.
Heidegger and Bacon: Throwing Thoth
"I love him who throws."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Zarathustra, 1883.
"To dare is to risk the game."
Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, 1971.
"Chance commingles with a feeling of déjà vu."
Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, New York, 1992.
"The true man wants two things: danger and play."
Friedrich Nietzsche, (1844-1900).
"The man of action is always without a conscience."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa, 1749-1832.
"Every Thought sends forth one Throw of the Dice."
Stéphane Mallarmé, The Dice Thrown Will Never Abolish Chance, 1897.
"The will to truth that still seduces us to take so many risks."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1885.
"He limits chance to chance... dread throws him back out of himself..."
Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language, Station Hill, 1999.
"This Thing gets thrown out...This Thing does not want to show itself."
John Carpenter, The Thing, Universal 1982.
"Whether I'll see Heidegger, I don't know yet...I'm leaving it to chance."
Hannah Arendt, Letter to Heinrich Blücher, January 3rd, 1950.
"I do think that Egyptian art is the greatest thing that has happened so far."
Francis Bacon, Art International, No. 8, Autumn, 1989.
"Lifetime is a child playing drafts, moving pieces on a board. The kingdom is a child's."
Heraclitus of Ephesus, 540 BC - 480 BC.
"World-time - it is a child, playing, moving the pebbles to and fro on a board, of such a child is the mastery over being."
Martin Heidegger, The Principle of Reason; 1955-1956; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
"Just what is this Thing? Chaos, chaos in the flesh...It's here ...It's all around us...It lives out of sight... It's playing with us..."
Dean Koontz, Phantoms, 1998.
"In every real man a child is hidden that wants to play...Man's maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play. "
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
"The human being arrives at the threshold: there he must throw himself headlong into that which has no foundation and has no head."
Georges Bataille, The Obelisk; Visions of Excess, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
"Paul Cézanne's painting suspends the habits of thought and reveals the base of inhuman nature upon which man has installed himself."
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Cézanne's Doubt, Sense and Non-Sense, Northwestern University Press, 1964.
"Seeing is primordially determined, not by the eye, but by the lighting of Being. Presence within the lighting articulates all the human senses."
Martin Heidegger, The Anaximander Fragment, Early Greek Thought, New York, Harper & Row, 1975.
"Thought is itself a kind of action and therefore does not have any ontological distinction from action. To think something is always already to do something."
Mark Cousins, Thought & Execution, Architectural Association, 1994.
"And what difference does it make to you - you dice throwers! You still have not learned to gamble and show defiance! Are we not forever seated here at this table, a gathering of mockers and gamblers?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Superman; Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.
"Theory of chance. The soul a selective and self-nourishing entity, perpetually extremely shrewd and creative. To recognise the active force, the creative force in the chance event: - chance itself is only the clash of creative impulses."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power; 1883-1888.
"But then I don't where the bull's-eye is. These things happen and then, of course, I manipulate them afterwards. I live my life between fact and chance... I've lived entirely on chance, hoping what is called 'the chance' will always work for me."
Francis Bacon; Hugh M. Davies; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.
"What Mallarmé sought as aesthetically persuasive was the impossible: to throw a seven over the shattered hull on its ocean reef that would dissolve into a seven-pointed star as the unreachable...A book with blank pages might thus become the most completely clear text."
Otto Pöggeler, The Paths od Heidegger's Life and Thought, Humanity Books, 1998.
"I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asks: 'Am I a cheat?' - for he wants to perish...A cast which ye made had failed. But what doth it matter, ye dice-players! Ye had not learned to play and mock, as one must play and mock! Do we not ever sit at a great table of mocking and playing?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.
"I was completely swept along with my own compulsion. I don't know how else to put it. It didn't satisfy me completely so maybe I was thinking another one will. Maybe this one will, and the numbers started growing and growing and just got out of control, as you can see...It's just like a big chunk of me has been ripped out and I'm not quite whole."
Jeffrey Dahmer, Confession, (1960-1994).
"There is no member of my body which is not the member of a god. Thoth protecteth my body altogether, and I am Ra day by day. I shall not be dragged back by my arms, and none shall lay violent hold upon my hands. And shall do me hurt neither men, nor gods, nor the Spirit-souls, nor the dead, nor any man, nor any pat-spirit, nor any rekhit-spirit, nor any hememet-spirit. I am he who cometh forth advancing, whose name is unknown. I am Yesterday."
Amun-Ra, Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Ani 240 BC.
"Man is at play each time and each time in different 'ways' which in truth are incomparable because here subject is not replaced with Da-sein and object with be-ing; becuase here this very juxtapositioning of the word formulas misleads and particularly fills up or covers over the abyss that exists between two 'ways'. Subject-Object: here man is put on the stage and secured in the pursuit of his security. Da-sein-be-ing: here man is risked as the guardian of the most question-worthy."
Martin Heidegger, Mindfulness, Continuum, 2006.
"The work of art is linked to a risk; it is the affirmation of an extreme experience. But what is this risk? What is the nature of the bond that unites the work to risk?...Art - as images, as words, and as rhythms - indicates the menacing proximity of a vague and vacant outside, a neutral existence, nil and limitless; art points to a sordid absence, a suffocating condensation where being ceaselessly perpetuates itself as nothingness."
Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press, 1982.
"Being as venture is the relation of flinging loose, and thus retains in the flinging even what has been ventured...Venture includes flinging into danger. To dare is to risk the game...If that which has been flung were to remain out of danger, it would not have been ventured. It would not be in danger if it were shielded."
Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper & Row, 1971.
"The act was not pure; I left traces. Wiping away these traces, I left others...Thus we are responsible beyond our intentions...That is to say that our consciousness, and our mastery of reality through consciousness, do not exhaust our relationship with reality, in which we are present with all the destiny of our being... But a trace in the strict sense disturbs the order of the world. It occurs by overprinting... He who left traces in wiping away his traces did not mean to say or do anything by the traces he left."
Emmanuel Levinas, Entre Nous: Essais sur le penser-à-l'autre; & The Trace of the Other; Éditions Bernard Grasset, Collection Figures,1993.
"Everything indicates that it was impossible for man to live without the 'sensation of time' that opened his world like a movement of breathtaking speed - but what he lived in the past as fear he can only now as pride and glory...A feeling of explosion and a vertiginous weightlessness surround an imperious and heavy obelisk...In each place where the massive destiny of man is formed, the rhythm of life and death accelerates and attains a speed so great that it results only in the vertigo of the fall...What makes this movement difficult to represent is the fact that it is accelerated by increases in the sensation of rest."
Georges Bataille, The Obelisk; Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
"Instead of God, chance. For those who grasp what chance is, the idea of God seems insipid and suspicious, like being crippled ... To want to be everything - or God is to want to cancel time, is to want to cancel chance. Not to want this is to want time and chance. To want chance is amor fati (love of fate). Amor fati signifies wanting chance, signifies differing from what was. To attain the unknown and risk it, to gamble it... In a definitive way, to risk is to bring what didn't exist into being...Time is chance insofar as requiring the individual, the separate being...Time without risk would be more or less nonexistent... Even now I can only risk and gamble, without knowing."
Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, 1992.
"Risk is necessary to understand what matters in depth, another risk - chance - to give oneself over to what one has understood....this situation has no way out. Any exit is a lie...We enter with a leap into a situation that is no longer defined by useful operations or by knowing but that opens up onto , to the possibility of losing oneself without possible contact with knowledge. this state, a state of violence, of tearing apart, of abduction, of ravishing, would in every respect be similar to mystical ecstasy...the ecstatic 'loss of knowledge' is properly inner experience..."
Maurice Blanchot, Inner Experience, Faux Pas, Stanford University Press, California, 2001.
"In trying to do a portrait, my ideal would really be just to pick up a handful of paint and throw it at the canvas and hope that the portrait was there...I know the part of the canvas I want to throw at...since I've thrown an awful lot... I can only hope that the throwing of the paint onto the already-made or half-made image will either re-form the image or that I will be able to manipulate this paint further into - anyway, for me - a greater intensity."
Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.
"I'm trying to suggest the devout terror that I'm thrown into by such a state even now. (In this regard I think the basic aspect of the will to power is overlooked if it is not seen as the love of evil: not as usefulness, but as a value signifying the summit.)...Even now I can only risk and gamble, without knowing... However, by advancing and risking myself - shrewdly, to be sure, if shrewdness was each time a 'throw of the dice' - I've changed the way in which I see the difficulties I met with at the outset...To act is to speculate on subsequent results... In this sense action is 'risk,' and the 'risk' is both the working and the things worked on...If need be, 'risk' can be wild and frantic, independent of concerns for the future....In his ideas on children, Nietzsche expressed the principal of open-ended play where occurrence exceeds the given... A child is innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning and game, a wheel turning on itself, a first impulse, the sacred 'yes'. The will to power is the lion: but isn't the child the will to chance?"
Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, New York, 1992.
"The projecting-opening is thrown, is placed into inabiding in openness of projecting be-ing. This placedness into abiding arises from out of a displacement that originates as attunement from the tune of stillness (from be-ing itself): this placedness is what is endowed in endownment... However, that projecting-opening of be-ing takes the thrower itself along unto the en-opened clearing wherein the thrower recognizes itself as an en-owned thrower. This projecting-open that carries the thrower along and transposes it, enacts in itself a fundamental transformation of the thrower insofar as the thrower is called 'man'. Thereupon the guardianship for the truth of being begins. But why is Da-sein grasped as 'temporality'?..."
Martin Heidegger, Da-sein; Mindfulness, Continuum, 2006.
"Chance is death, and the dice according to which one dies are cast by chance; they signify only the utterly hazardous movement which reintroduces us within chance. Is it at Midnight that the 'dice must be cast'? But Midnight is precisely the hour that does not strike until after the dice are thrown, the hour which has never yet come, which never comes, the pure, ungraspable future, the hour eternally past. Nietzsche has already come up against the same contradiction when he said, 'Die at the right time.'... But death's rightful quality is impropriety, inaccuracy - the fact that it comes either too soon or too late, prematurely and as if after the fact, never coming until after its arrival. It is the abyss of present time, the reign of a time without a present, without that exactly positioned point which is the unstable balance of the instant whereby everything finds its level upon a single plane."
Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press, 1982.
"If ever breath has come toward me, the breath of creative breathing and necessity, forcing even chance to dance the dance of the stars; if ever I laughed at the creative lightning, followed growling but obedient by the lengthy thunder of action; if ever I played dice with the gods at the divine table of earth so the earth shook and split throwing out rivers of flame - for the earth is a divine table, trembling with new words and the sign of the divine dice..."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Seven Seals; Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.
"The Geschick of being: a child that plays, shifting the pawns...The Geschick of being, a child that plays... Why does it play, the great child of the world-play Heraclitus brought into view in the aiôn? It plays, because it plays. The 'because' withers away in the play. The play is without 'why.' It plays since it plays. It simply remains a play: the most elevated and the most profound. But this 'simply' is everything, the one, the only... The question remains whether and how we, hearing the movements of this play, play along and accommodate ourselves to the play."
Martin Heidegger, The Principle of Reason,1955-1956; Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1991.
"A characteristic element in Bacon's use of chance in his painting is a white blotch, as found, for example, in Study for Head of Isabel Rawsthorne, 1967, Study of George Dyer in a Mirror, 1968 and Study for bullfight No.2, 1969. In these pictures Bacon throws thick white paint at the canvas: at the face of the figure, at the bull, at the centre of the painting. The resulting white blotch looks as though the undiluted paint had been accidentally added to the painting by hand... Sometimes it remains where it landed; sometimes it is drawn with the brush to adjacent points in the picture. But first Bacon simply adds the white blotch, whether or not it fits into the painting... In Bacon's explanation of the meaning of the white spots and slashes that he added to the canvas so abruptly and almost thoughtlessly, he speaks of 'pure accident,' of 'instinct,' and that the picture almost paints itself. He says that the subconscious is finding expression in his his work."
Barbara Steffen, Chance and the Tradition of Art in Francis Bacon's Work, Francis Bacon & the Tradition of Art, Skira, 2003.
"Accident, as Bacon understands it, is not manifested in the sort of beauty that Lautréamont described as the 'fortuitous encounter of an umbrella and a sewing machine on a dissecting table', Such anticipation of the the Surrealsists' collages shows Bacon's lack of interest in uniting two apparently irreconcilable realities on a plane where they seem not to belong, in the manner of Max Ernst... Accident's territory is essentially in the palpable signs of the artist's work process; it manifests itself in the traces and marks of the paint-saturated brush on the canvas. According to Gilles Deleuze, these 'marks are, these traits, are irrational, involuntary, accidental, free, random. They are nonrepresentative, nonillustrative, nonnarrative. They are no longer either significant or signifiers: They are a-signifying traits. [...] These almost blind manual marks attest to the intrusion of another world into the visual world of figuration. [...] They mark out possibilities of fact, but do not yet constitute a fact (the pictorial fact).' ... Accident, as something taken out of the artist's hands, may be incompatible with the idea of the 'act of free creation' - if so, this contradiction raises the question of how art is possible at all and what is evident in this enigmatic quality. Following Paul Valéry and Theodor W. Adorno, the 'meaninglessness' that accident brings into any work can be said to replicate in a certain way the meaninglessness of the era. It is in protest against this that accident is given such a function... In any event, Bacon endeavours to take accident as a departure point, to accept what has arisen spontaneously as the initiation, yet then to modify, to transform, to control it and finally to ascribe some function and hence some of the apparently meaningless, be it a sense of the resistant, the unassimilable, the disconcerting or the grotesque...The element of chance that Bacon invokes obviously has nothing to do with automatism or spontaneity; in his terminology the accidental is bound to the force of instinct, which plays a central role in his thinking."
Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the Unconscious; The Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.
"Sheer omnipresence of paint is what impresses most as one enters this highly fraught space. Coloured marks - accidental splats, brush wipes, trial runs of one hue against another - rainbow or cascade over the walls, turning them into giant palettes. Another pattern of chance blobs and trickles extends in an intricately coloured net over the book-and photo-strewn floor. Sticky masses of half-spent tubes, thickest of coagulated brushes rear up on all sides, amid old plates and pans used to mix colour, rollers, rags, tins, and jars of every description. An old passport or a single, shinning shoe occasionally heaves into sight like a drowning man, and is lost...But the intense confusion also has something hilarious, even cheering, about it because it conveys utter disrespect for the ordinary rules of living and breathes a rare sense of freedom. Then what catches the eye is the chaos carpeting the studio floor, which can be read as a kind of sourcebook for Baconian imagery."
Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: The Studio as a Symbol, Connoisseur, September, 1984.
"Hence we have avoided the wiles of pure chance, which might indeed have produced logical sequences; for we must not, one mathematician [René Thom] tells us, 'underestimate the power of chance to engender monsters'; the monster, in this case, would have been, emerging from a certain order of the figures, a 'philosophy of love' where we must look for no more than its affirmation."
Roland Barthes, Lover's Discourse: Fragments, Editions de Seuil, Paris 1977.
"The creative process is a cocktail of instinct, skill, culture and a highly creative feverishness. It is not like a drug; it is a particular state when everything happens very quickly, a mixture of consciousness and unconsciousness, of fear and pleasure; it’s a little like making love, the physical act of love. It can be as violent as fucking, like an orgasm or an ejaculation. The result is often disappointing, but the process is highly exciting."
Francis Bacon, The Last Interview - with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.
"Both the artist and the suicide plan something that eludes all plans, and if they do have a path, they have no goal; they do not know what they are doing. They devote themselves to this misunderstanding as if blind...The work wants, so to speak, to install itself, to dwell in this negligence. A call from there reaches it. this is where, in spite of itself, it is drawn, by something that puts it absolutely to the test. It is attracted by an ordeal in which everything is risked, by an essential risk where being is at stake, where nothingness slips away, where, that is, the right, the power to die is gambled."
Maurice Blanchot, Art, Suicide; The Work and Death's Space; University of Nebraska Press, 1982.
"What I call accident...suddenly appears out of the blue. In the end, painting is the result of the interaction of those accidents and the will of the artist, if you prefer, the interaction of the unconscious and the conscious...But that's not at all what it's like when you're at the canvas. There you don't know where you are or where you're going or, above all, what's going to happen. You're in a fog...I have a curious type of self-discipline which is probably an asset, because painting doesn't just consist of throwing paint at the canvas. I don't have a master plan when I begin a canvas...I always think that I won't know how to do it."
Francis Bacon, In conversation with Michel Archimbaud, Phaidon, 1993.
"I embrace the abject, abjecting myself, but I do not control or conquer it. I rewrite the rules – precisely by abhoring them, ignoring them, paying them no heed, being unable to abide by them, seeing their impossibility. I demolish the rules in order to reform reality, to re-structure the world. I erase all the supporting structures in order to have to start again from the beginning, building up again from the start, piece by weary piece. And in the process, I punish myself – and any others who happen to get in the way might be casualties of my own self-denigration. Falling by the wayside, they are included, sometimes and in some respects by my own harsh castigation that observes no boundaries, cannot observe the usual distinctions of self/other, peace/violence, for abjection is in the business precisely of obliterating the meaning and function and safety of these categories."
Tina Chanter, Abjection, Death and Difficult Reasoning: The Impossibility of Naming Chora in Kristeva and Derrida; 2000.
"Something stronger than my conscious will made it happen. I think some higher power got good and fed-up with my activity and decided to put an end to it. I don't really think there were any coincidences. The way it ended and whether the close calls were warning to me or what, I don't know. If they were, I sure didn't heed them… If I hadn't been caught or lost my job, I'd still be doing it, I'm quite sure of that. I went on doing it and doing it and doing it, in spite of my anxiety and the lack of lasting satisfaction… How arrogant and stupid of me to think that I could do something like this and just go about my life normally as if nothing ever happened. They say you reap what you sow, well, it's true, you do, eventually … I've always wondered, from the time that I committed that first horrid mistake, sin, with Hicks, whether this was sort of predestined and there was no way I could have changed it. I wonder just how much predestination controls a person's life and just how much control they have over themselves."
Jeffrey Dahmer, Confession, (1960-1994).
"Making plans. - To make plans and project designs brings with it many good sensations; and whoever had the strength to be nothing but a forger of plans his whole life long would be a very happy man: but he would occasionally have to take a rest from this activity by carrying out a plan - and then comes the vexation and the sobering up. Defiance and loyalty. - He clings firmly out of defiance to a cause which he has seen through - but he calls it 'loyalty'."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Maxims and Reflections; A Nietzsche Reader, Penguin Classics, 1977.
"Man is no longer doing battle with a group equal to the one which he represents, but with Nothingness. In this extreme contest, he can be compared to the bull in the bullfight. The bull in the bullfight is at times heavily absorbed in the animal's lack of concern - abandoning itself to the secret collapse of death - at times, seized with rage, it rushes forth upon the void which a phantom matador opens before it without respite. But once the void is affronted, it is nudity which the bull embraces - to the extent that it is a monster - taking this sin on lightly. Man is no longer, like an animal, the plaything of Nothingness, but Nothingness itself is his plaything - he ruins himself in it, but illuminates its darkness with his laughter, which he reaches only when intoxicated with the very void which kills him."
Georges Bataille, Inner Experience, 1936.
"This characteristic of Dasein’s Being – this ‘that it is’ – is veiled in its ‘whence’ and ‘whither’, yet disclosed in itself all the more unveiledly; we call it the ‘thrownness’ of this entity into its ‘there’; indeed, it is thrown in such a way that, as Being-in-the-world, it is the ‘there’. The expression ‘thrownness’ is meant to suggest the facticity of its being delivered over."
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 1927; Harper & Row, New York, 1962.
"A sense of fear of the unknown moved in the heart of his weariness, a fear of symbols and portents, of the hawk-like man whose name he bore soaring out of his captivity on osier woven wing, of Thoth, the god of writers, writing with a reed upon a tablet and bearing on his narrow ibis head the cusped moon."
James Joyce, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, 1916.
"MP: Are there certain images that you go back to a great deal, for example Egyptian images? You look at the same things a lot, don't you?" FB: "I look at the same things, I do think that Egyptian art is the greatest thing that has happened so far."
Michael Peppiatt & Francis Bacon; An Interview with Francis Bacon: Provoking Accidents, Prompting Chance, Art International, No. 8, Autumn 1989.
"The obelisk is without doubt the purest image of the head and of the heavens...The pyramid let the god-king enter the eternity of the sky next to the solar Ra, and in this way existence regained its unshakable plenitude in the person of the one it had recognized. The existing pyramids still bear witness to this calm triumph of an unwavering and hallucinating resolve: they are not only the most ancient and the vastest monuments man has ever constructed, but they are still, even today, the most enduring."
Georges Bataille, The Obelisk; Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
"Bacon first of all seems to be an Egyptian. This is his first stopping point. A painting by Bacon has an Egyptian look to it: the form and the ground, connected to each other by the contour, lie on a single plane of a close, haptic vision...Glory to the Egyptians. "I could never dissociate myself from the great European images of the past - and by 'European' I mean to include Egyptian, even if the geographers wouldn't agree with me."...through the centuries, there are many things that make Bacon an Egyptian: the fields, the contours, the form and the ground as two equally close sectors lying on the same plane, the extreme proximity of the Figure (presence), the system of clarity. Bacon renders to Egypt the homage of the sphinx, and declares his love for Egyptian sculpture: like Rodin, he thinks that durability, essence, or eternity are the primary characteristics of the work of art."
Gilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: the Logic of Sensation, Continuum, 2005.
"The sphinx as subject undoubtedly stems from the time Bacon spent in Egypt during a journey of 1950-51 to visit his mother in South Africa. He was greatly impressed by the antiquities he saw in Cairo and, some twenty years later, in expressing his admiration for Velázquez by comparing him to Cézanne, Bacon alluded to the power of Egyptian art: 'I don't think Cézanne's people are very intense, his apples are more intense than his people, his apples are some of the greatest apples ever painted. His power of invention in forming an apple has never gone into his forming of human beings, he tends to make them inanimate objects, he doesn't extend his invention into the psyche....Velázquez came to the human situation and made it grand and heroic and wasn't bombastic. He turned to a literal situation and made an image of it, both fact and image at the same time. The Pope is like Egyptian art; factual, powerfully formal and unlocks valves of sensation at all different levels'...."
Hugh M. Davies, Francis Bacon: The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.
"The Osiris Ani, the Osiris the scribe Ani saith:- Homage to thee, O Bull of Amentet, Thoth the king of eternity is with me. I am the great god by the side of the divine boat, I have fought for thee, I am one of those gods, those divine chiefs, who proved the truth-speaking of Osiris before his enemies on the day of the weighing of words. I am thy kinsman Osiris. I am [one of] those gods who were the children of the goddess Nut, who hacked in pieces the enemies of Osiris, and who bound in fetters the legion of Sebau devils on his behalf. I am thy kinsman Horus, I have fought on thy behalf, I have come to thee for thy name's sake. I am Thoth who proved the truth of the words of Osiris before his enemies on the day of the weighing of words in the great House of the Prince, who dwelleth in Anu."
The Papyrus of Ani, The Chapter Of Coming Forth By Day; The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 1240 BC.
"In some curious way, although I think of Egyptian art as among the greatest realistic art, I think the way Giacommrtti brings in the influence of Egyptian art detracts from his sculpture, because, whereas in Egyptian art the style had an absolute reason, I feel when it's used in the way Giacommetti used it, it's used almost as a conceit."
Francis Bacon, Looking Back at Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 2000.
"On shelves and on the floor the source material quickly proliferated. Books on Egyptian art lay beside crumpled, paint-splattered photos of birds in flight, beak and talons outstretched...Never short of a paradox, Bacon insisted that he and his paintings were above all 'simple'. 'When I hear certain people talk, I always think I belong to a very ancient simplicity I'm probably the simplest person you know,' he suggested to me."
Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma, Westview Press, 1996.
"The painting now known as Portrait of a dwarf (1975) is, uniquely, in a narrow upright format, the result of Bacon having eliminated two-thirds of the original canvas. Formerly, the dwarf occupied the role of what Bacon called an 'attendant'; these attendants were either voyeuristic, or paradoxically disengaged, witnesses of a horrifying spectacle, or of sexual intercourse. In Portrait of a dwarf, the homunculus stares back implacably at the viewer, returning our gaze while apparently indifferent to the upturned, writhing nude male in a glass cage to his left..The dwarf's seated, cross-legged pose recalls both Velázquez's A dwarf sitting on the floor (c. 1645) and the ancient Egyptian statue of Seneb, the chief of the palace dwarves, in the National Museum, Cairo; Bacon, who considered Egyptian art to have been mankind's highest cultural achievement, had visited Cairo in 1951 and is likely to have seen the figure."
Martin Harrison, Francis Bacon: lost and found; Apollo, March 2005.
"You once explained that the Egyptians had some idea of myth and even for Velázquez and Rembrandt there were still some religious possibilities, and today all that's been stamped out. Would you say that your art is a product of a demythological age?' [Francis Bacon]: 'Totally demythified. And you see, after all, I don't say it's a good thing, because when you think of some of the great Egyptian art - there were things that they put in the graves with the people, with the dead, and it was marvelous because it was something to, as it were, comfort them in their journey to the next world, or to comfort them in the next world. Like they even gave them food. And if they didn't, it's a very complicated thing with the Egyptians how much they knew or thought, because, after all, they didn't give them food sometimes. They just painted the food on the wall, you see. And that's a very odd thing about them. What they thought or what they really believed is another interesting thing. But then, we who believe in nothing, we make only our myths out of our existence and it's, of course, a nuisance.'..."
Hugh M. Davies in conversation with Francis Bacon; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.
"Thoth is an engendered god. He often calls himself the son of the god-king, the sun-god, Ammon-Ra. 'I am Thoth, the eldest son of Ra.' Ra (the sun) is god the creator, and he engenders through the mediation of the word....The world came out of an egg. More precisely, the living creator of the life of the world came out of an egg: the sun, then, was at first carried in an eggshell. Which explains a number of Ammon-Ra's characteristics: he is also a bird, a falcon ('I am the great falcon, hatched from the egg'). But in his capacity as origin of everything, Ammon-Ra is also the origin of the egg. He is designated sometimes as the bird-sun born from the primal egg, sometimes as the originary bird, carrier of the first egg... If we add that this egg is also a 'hidden egg,' we shall have constituted but also opened up the system of these significations..."
Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, The Athlone Press, 1981.
"In practice the scrutinized sun can be identified with mental ejaculation, foam on the lips, and an epileptic crisis... In mythology, the scrutinized sun is identified with a man who slays a bull (Mithra), with a vulture that eats the liver (Prometheus): in other words, with a man who looks along with the slain bull or the eaten liver... Of course the bull himself is also an image of the sun, but only with his throat slit... One might add that the sun has also been mythologically expressed by a man slashing his own throat, as well as by an anthropomorphic being deprived of a head... In contemporary painting the search for that which most ruptures the highest elevation, and for a blinding brilliance, has a share in the elaboration or decomposition of forms, though strictly speaking this is only noticeable in the paintings of Picasso."
Georges Bataille, Rotten Sun; Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
"The golden gleam of the lighting's invisible shining cannot be grasped, because it is not itself something grasping. Rather, it is the purely appropriating event. The invisible shining of the lighting streams from the wholesome self-keeping in the self-restraining preservation of destiny...Gods and men belong in the lighting not only as lighted and viewed, but also as invisible, bringing the lighting with them and, in their own way, preserving it and handing it down in its endurance."
Martin Heidegger, Aletheia; Early Greek Thought, New York, Harper & Row, 1975.
"I hate the personality that chemmy players put on between one another, and so I like the completely impersonal thing of roulette. Also it just happens that I have been luckier at roulette than I have at chemmy... I remember when I lived once for a long time in Monte Carlo and I became very obsessed by the casino and spent whole days there... and I did sometimes have very lucky wins. I used to think that I heard the croupier calling out the winning number at roulette before the ball had fallen into the socket, and I used to go from table to table. And I remember one afternoon I went in there, and I was playing on three different tables, and I heard these echoes... I feel I want to win, but then I feel exactly the same thing in painting. I feel I want to win even if I always lose."
Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.
"And so we enjoy seeing other people take risks as we sit comfortably back in our chairs and give ourselves up to the maddening exhilaration of danger, while never actually exposing ourselves to the slightest hazard likely to destroy our flesh, so enamored of lazy tranquillity...This is the very reason, I think, that murderers are so popular: a good crime is no doubt horrible, but at the same time it unconsciously satisfies everyone, and the murderer becomes a kind of sorcerer who has ritually performed the most terrifying of sacrifices."
Michel Leiris, Civilisation; Documents 4, 1929.
"I can play my destiny in a game of dice, as long as I play it as chance exterior to me and accept it as a destiny absolutely tied to me; but if the dice are there in order to change into a whim the too burdensome fatality that I am no longer able to want, it is now in my interest to play and because of the interest in the game. I become a gambler who makes the game impossible (it is no longer a game)."
Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language, The Station Hill Blanchot Reader, Station Hill, 1999.
"In Nietzsche and Philosophy, Deleuze puts forth that every 'game has two moments which are those of a dicethrow— the dice that is thrown and the dice that falls back'. These two moments, however, are inextricably linked — in the way that 'two hours of a single world, the two moments of a single world, midnight and midday, the hour when the dice are thrown, the hour when the dice fall back' are linked. Deleuze insists that games are not a matter of constellations of multiple outcomes that manifest over time to produce either a winning or losing result; 'On the contrary, it is a matter of a single dicethrow which, due to the number of the combination produced, comes to reproduce itself as such'. To throw the dice is to affirm the necessity of chance and thus to unhinge one's actions from the temporal restraints of causality and in doing so to instantiate an independent act— independent of anticipated results, independent of time and the concept of consequence, disengaged from the always churning machine of becoming. It is to release at random, to in fact, celebrate randomness by consciously creating it, and in thereby doing, opening up the possibility for perceiving other non-contingent singular actions to take place within the confines of the respective rules at hand."
H. Marcelle Crickenberger, The Arcades Project Project or The Rhetoric of Hypertext; University of South Carolina, 2005.
"Chance and instinct are two key components of Francis Bacon's terminology to which he constantly returned... It was Kant who first emphasised as Bacon maintains here, that instinct was without self-insight, stating that instinct is 'the inner compulsion of the faculty of desire to take this object into possession, before one is acquainted with it'. Yet the fact remains that the distinction between inspiration and instinct cannot always be clearly drawn, especially as Bacon occasionally felt himself to be a medium for more more powerful forces. Hence, Nietzsche's definition of inspiration can certainly be brought to bear with reference to Bacon, if '...suddenly, with indescribable certainty and subtlety, something becomes visible, audible, something that shakes one to the last depths and throws one down [...] One hears, one does not seek; one accepts, one does not ask who gives; like lightening, a thought flashes up, with necessity, without hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice [...] Everything happens involuntarily in the highest degree [...] the involuntariness of image and metaphor is strangest of all; one on longer has any notion of what is an image or a metaphor; everything offers itself as the nearest, most obvious, simplest expression.' [Ecce Homo] The compulsion (in Kant's terms) to grasp something, the form of which is as yet unknown (instinct) is very much akin to what Nietzsche describes so energetically; all that is missing from Bacon's instinctive action is the impulse of revelation which is ultimately so central to Nietzsche's view. "
Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the Unconscious; The Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.
"Nietzsche exalts the dice throw of Chance. It is the Overman, the Child, who can affirm this Chance, this intricate enigma of Life, beyond God and gods – towards that which we all share. This Child is born through the birth traumas of a Revaluation of All Values. Amidst the metamorphoses of the Camel into the Lion, and the Lion into the Child, there is myriad unclarity and indistinctness. The camel is cast aside as the ring-bearer of tradition, of the old law tablets. The Lion, amidst the revaluation, destroys, but is not yet aware of his own inadvertent creations, he will never be aware. It is the Child who is born into the topos which is the last gift of the Lion. The Child picks up the blind creations of the Lion and meets these as found objects, beings of wonder, of innocence. The Child affirms new values in innocence, finally free of the “against” of the Lion. Zarathustra is inseminated by Eternity, by the Overwoman - he abides, struggles, endures with this goddess of childbirth, Aleqea, his midwife, in his final act of self-overcoming, giving birth to his Children. In an alchemical sense, Zarathustra, through his affirmation, gives birth to himself. Eternity rends this dread curtain, inaugurates this marriage of light and darkness. Zarathustra mates with Eternity. She shoots lightning out from a dark cloud - flying off this edge of that precipice, off that cliff of the mountain. Zarathustra receives this lightning, he is inseminated by it as a tree on the mountainside. She disseminates her truth into him, and, with chaos in his heart, he gives birth to dancing stars. Zarathustra gives birth to himself. Eternity – Overwoman - is the Semen for this new creation. She flashes herself – her lightning casts this existence into relief – beckons this pregnancy and childbirth of Zarathustra. Children grow and dance amidst this All - laughter, sorrow, anguish, joy, and more laughter… Zarathustra plays with his Children…"
Dr. James Luchte, Zarathustra’s Nietzsche: From Guilt to Innocence; Department of Philosophy, University of Wales.
"Hegel was a Head and only a Head as his Body of Knowledge was Severed by his System as an auto-beheading of bodily being Beginning as an Action without Thinking as a Thought activated above Hegel's Head. Hegel hit the Nail on the Head of Philosophy as an angoisse Action above and ahead of Thinking. For Hegel Thought is always already an Action ahead of our Thinking about a Thought. The alien of action is always already without a conscience - without a conception. To Think Something is always already to Throw Something ahead albeit The Nothing at all. For the alien Abjecting is always already afar and ahead of Thinking. Action abjected is ahead of the Head of Thought decapitated by the Terrorism of Thinking where an abjected Action has no Ideological Aim or Political Argument or Philosophical Proposition but Seeks to Sever Sein's Security. Hegel heads a Header to Thinking through Throwing Thought away as an angoisse Action without Thinking the Thought through...Throwing throttles Thought from Thinking about Throwing Thought forth from Thinking about the Thought thrown...Throwing beheads Thinking ahead. To Think is to Abject for Thinking is an Abjecting."
Alex Alien, Bacon & Jünger: Storm & Steel Sensationism; Being & Alien, 2006.
"To understand detachment one must be detached. In Heidegger, to understand the turn, one must oneself turn about. To understand authentic temporality, one must exist authentically. To understand the directionality, Sinn, of being, one must become besinnlich, meditative. To understand the fourfold's play without why, one must live without why. To understand releasement, one must be released. To understand the primordial leap (Ur-sprung) which is the originary, one must take a leap...Here is how Heidegger explains these lines: we must 'leap away from grounds' (vom Grund abspringen), 'let go' (loslassen) of them. This is the practical imperative for understanding the other releasement which is non-human and through which presencing tenders its economies. Through our releasement and on its condition alone, we are 'let into' (eingelassen) that other releasement - both identical to and different from ours - which is the event of presencing."
Reiner Schürmann, Heidegger on Being and Acting: From Principals to Anarchy, Indiana University Press, 1987.
"It was as if a gigantic flash of lightning was rending a darkness-clothed sky... in almost painful brightness the things of the world lay revealed.. .it was not a matter of a system, but of existence... It had me speechless ... I felt as though for a moment I had gazed at the foundations of the world."
Heinrich Wiegand Petzet, on attending Martin Hidegger's What is Metaphysics? lecture, 1929.
"Bacon's strategy is abandonment: he enters the eye of the hurricane, abandons himself (his eyes) to the cliché, conjures them, accumulates them, multiplies them; he gives himself to the prepictorial, and, most importantly, gives himself to the will of losing the will... Bacon's struggle is with the eye itself, that the combat concerns the blinding of eyes - as so many positions of seeing/looking within the picture space...Is it then that the eye will be affected (attacked) on the spectator's side - outside the picture as well? The body, and (in the portraits) the head, is subject to extraordinary forces from the outside; forces of isolation and deformation take possession of it and become visible each time the head jolts the face or the body the organism. With dissipation, with coupling waves of spasm travel and register on the body's surface: the Figure (thus isolated/caged) stands in the field of forces, in the middle of an invisible hurricane which deforms it and which makes it visible...The paradox: the painting [Francis Bacon's Innocent X] renders the visible, renders the invisible visible, but there is no one (no eye/I) to see (it)...At the end of Bacon's struggle, with the hand victorious, free to leave its mark, the act of painting becomes manual ('travail manuel') - blind....the 'free mark' made in the interior of the image by the (blind) hand does not express anything concerning the visual image; it concerns only the hand of the painter. It is accidental, irrational, involuntary, nonrepresentative, nonillustrative, nonnarrative. The marks of the hand are the non-signifying - asignifying - traits of sensation, the product of chance or action without probability. Rather than a probability 'conceived' or 'seen,' the mark is chance manipulated (literally, by the hand); improbable, unseen/unforseen - it is thus free precisely from supervision by the eye, from the eye's governance of vision...Would it not be just the 'point of view of the hand' to 'see' and 'conceive' vision as an instrument of the mind?"
Zsuzsa Baross, Francis Bacon, the Philosopher's Painter, and the Logic of Sensation; Panorama; Continuum, London 2002.
"Bacon's contrived accidents - squeezing paint into his hand and throwing it at the canvas, the use of sponges, the rubbing in of studio dust and so on - allow him to pursue an alternative practice of painting to that of representation. They permit the possibility not so much of the transformation of his figures, but of their deformation... It is the image in all its materiality that throws out this darkness, that marks itself by darkness...What oozes out is the lamella, the organ of the drive...I am saying that it is the lamella that is the outcome of Bacon's efforts to avoid narrative and representation and to act directly on the nervous system. Bacon's 'matter of fact' turns out to be the lamella. And I mean you to take this quite literally....What is at stake is not violence but paint."
Parveen Adams, The violence of paint; The Emptiness of the Image, Routledge, 1996.
"For Thoth Throwing wins its Truth only when - in diced dismemberment - it finds itself - as time-trapped - beheading-being being-there. Da-sein means: being thrown out into the Nothing - Throwing itself out into the Nothing. Da-sein throws Art ahead. Art throws open an open space - as an abjected-ather. Throwing is Showing the unseen unconcealment. Throwing-the-Nothing is Throwing-for-Nothing - for the Nothing is Thrown - the Nothing is Shown - the Nothing comes from the Nothing - Thrown by the Nothing - from the Nothing - to the Nothing - giving the gift - of the Nothing."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006
"To be sure, the theme of play is there. However, if one understands the fort/da beyond what it seems Freud intends to say, then one may exceed the limits of the game toward the play of the world where the fort/da is no longer simply the relation of subject to object. It is, instead, that which has absolute command over all experience in general...Freud, on the other hand, always ends up finding his interpretations insufficient. One by one, he throws them away and moves on to another. He always has to take one more step: he moves onto another which he also throws away until finally he retains no single interpretation. He himself is doing fort/da with his interpretations and it never stops."
Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other, University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
"Thoth is the god of games of chance...Thoth is a gambler and the god of rogues making their living off the tricks of the trade in pool halls and floating crap games... As supplement for Ra-Ammon, Thoth bears the message of the creator: in this way, Thoth comes to be the god of the moon who replaces the sun when it is hidden and which bears the message of its shinning. The supplemental nature of Thoth puts him in the company of much scheming and trickery going on in the world...He is the patron god of sons who kill their fathers, brothers who gang up to kill their fathers, and brothers who kill their brothers..."
Michael Roth, The Poetics of Resistance, Northwestern University Press, 1996.
"Bacon's real passion, however, was gambling...He had already enjoyed the mystique of roulette in a variety of casinos, moving expertly from table to table in a kind of trance, placing his jetons very deliberately on an intuitive sequence of numbers and rarely hedging his bets...He was excited by the terrible highs and lows that gambling, like painting, procured. 'You can't understand the tremendous draw gambling has unless you've been in that kind of position where you terribly needed money and you manage to get it by gambling,' he told me once, going on to give a memorable vignette of his experiences in Monte Carlo: 'I had a really marvellous win at one point. I was playing on three different tables and I kept thinking I could hear the numbers called out before they come up - as if the croupiers were actually calling them out...' Bacon loved extremes: to paint by day and gamble by night kept him in the state of nervous tension that enabled him constantly to push back the boundaries. Only by living and working on the edge, he believed, could he go far enough to innovate; or as he himself put it, 'you have to go too fat to go far enough - only then can you hope to break the mould and make something new.' ... Deliberately and persistently breaking the rules in life as in art, Bacon also held regular gambling sessions in the studio."
Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon in the 1950s, Yale University Press, 2006.
"The Egyptian word for obelisk, tehén, is philosophically connected with the word for sunbeam...The close connection between obelisk and the sun, implied by the Egyptian word, tehén, is reflected in the common practice of erecting obelisks to honour the sun god, Ra. The obelisk can, in fact, be understood as the sign of solar religion... Ra's nocturnal representative is Thoth, who, during the reign of the sun king Osiris, 'initiated men into arts and letters and created hieroglyphic writing' [Derrida, Dissemination]... It is important to note that Thoth appears as 'the bull among the stars.' sun (Ra) and bull (Thoth) reemerge in the religious mythology of the West... Sun, scaffold, sacrifice, cut, cleavage, coup; erection, resurrection, insurrection; cock and bull; capitol, capital, capitalism, capitalization; decapitation, blindness, castration; Icarus. The obelisk, it seems, marks the site of the scaffold that is the altar of sacrifice where reason loses its head in a revolution from which we are still spinning - and weaving."
Mark C. Taylor, Ecstasy: Georges Bataille: Pineal Eye of the Obelisk; Altarity, University of Chicago Press, 1987.
"Thoth, the 'nocturnal representative of Ra, the bull among the stars,' turns toward the west. He is the god of the moon, either as identified with it or its protector. Thoth is never present. Nowhere does he appear in person. Not being-there can properly be his own... Sly, slippery, and masked, and intriguer and a card, like Hermes, he is neither king nor jack, but rather a sort of joker, a floating signifier, a wild card, one who puts play into play...It is to him that we owe the games of dice and draughts...Thoth also frequently participates in plots, perfidious intrigues, conspiracies to usurp the throne."
Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, The Athlone Press, 1981.
"The myth of Thoth as told by Socrates in Phaedrus is another important deconstructive tool for Derrida's work. Thoth is the god of writing in Egyptian mythology and like the term pharmakon, Thoth and all of the implications that come with him as a representative of writing make him a complicated figure, more so than Plato is content to disclose. Basically, Plato tries to make Thoth, and thus writing out to be some kind alien foe, a kind of arch-enemy to Logos and dialectics. As with the pharmakon, in the Phaedrus, Plato tries to limit and solidify the meaning and definition of Thoth in support of his argument, while in Plato's Pharmacy Derrida's argument principally consists of breaking open these imposed limitations to the force of play... Like Thoth, the term pharmakon is slippery when wet, and Derrida is happily spilling water all over it, and all of Plato's Phaedrus (Pharmacy). Spilling water on Plato's text reveals the contradictions he is to blame for as well as those which, if we don't blame language itself, if we don't blame play, then no one is truly to blame for. Largely by using the myth of Thoth, Plato attempts to explain how writing is bad. By following ambiguity of the pharmakon, Derrida shows how Plato's explanation is itself bad, that is, full of self-defeating complications, a victim of play. Plato is angry at Thoth, Derrida is angry at Plato. This is because Thoth, being the pernicious (parricidal) joker that he is, tried to sell the pharmakon (writing) to the king in the myth only as a remedy. But noticing the latent ambiguity that Thoth tries to conceal, Plato then becomes suspicious of writing as both a poison and a remedy, and consequently goes even beyond his concern with the good/bad opposition to create the even more rash inside/outside distinction, at which Derrida cringes. "
Seth Warren, Play and Plato's Allergies or Perforating the Slash; Contemporary Critical Theory, February 24, 1997.
"As Thoth is the subversive repetition of Ra, the left eye is that of the right eye. However, this repetition is not to be understood in the sense of the recollection of Hegel’s re-membering but in the sense of Nietzsche's eternal re-turning. Hegelian re-membering is grounded in a solid archetypal model or paradigm (i.e., the Absolute Spirit) which is untouched by the effects of repetition and which realizes and objectifies itself in its repetition. On the other hand, Nietzschean mode of repetition posits a world based on difference and dissemination. Each thing is unique, intrinsically different from every other thing. Similarity arises against the background of disparity. It is not, as Hegelian repetition is, a world of copies, but that of simulacra or phantasms. In the Great Seal, the Nietzschean repetition of the right eye by the left eye produces something that is neither the left eye nor the right eye: what it produces is something in between both eyes. Or, we may say this something in between is the pineal eye that fascinates Bataille so much. The pineal eye is not an organ but a fantasy or a myth. The fantasy is, in a certain manner, the discrete and essential component of all scatology to the extent that it escapes the economy of the totalizing and tantalizing idea."
Chun-san Wang, The Eye and the Pyramid; Chung Hsing Journal of Humanities; 33, 2003, 6.
"The Universe started with nothing but the Water Chaos. It was called Nun. When the water subsided, the first land to appear was the Ben Ben stone. On it stood the Sun God Atum, who created himself. In some legends, Atum was replaced with Ra, who later merged with Amun to Amun Ra. Atum performed auto fellatio and spat out Shu (the air) and Tephnut (the moisture). When Atum masturbated, the first word he exclaimed was deified into the God Hu, the Divine Utterance. Atum then drew blood from his penis and created the Goddess Sia. Sia was the personification of the Divine Knowledge/Omniscience of the Gods. Hu was the personification of the Divine Utterance, the Voice of the Gods. Heka, the personification of the Divine Power, joined them in a divine Triad. After Geb and Nut were born, mankind was created from the tears of Atum."
Günther Eichhorn, Creation of the University; Ancient Egyptian Mythology.
"Nietzsche’s dice-throw is the affirmation of the multiplicity of chance all at once. It is the unity affirmed of multiplicity. It is being which is affirmed of becoming. The eternal return is real difference and the becoming of that difference. It eliminates that which is return of the same. For Nietzsche’s genealogy, (N&P85-6) “The will to power is plastic, inseparable from each case in which it is determined; just as the eternal return is being, but being which is affirmed of becoming, the will to power is unitary, but unity which is affirmed of multiplicity. The monism of the will to power is inseparable from the pluralist typology."
Beth Metcalf, Nietzsche’s Univocity, July 2, 2005.
"A characteristic element in Bacon's use of chance in his painting is a white blotch, as found, for example, in Study for Head of Isabel Rawsthorne, 1967, Study of George Dyer in a Mirror, 1968 and Study for bullfight No.2, 1969. In these pictures Bacon throws thick white paint at the canvas: at the face of the figure, at the bull, at the centre of the painting. The resulting white blotch looks as though the undiluted paint had been accidentally added to the painting by hand... Sometimes it remains where it landed; sometimes it is drawn with the brush to adjacent points in the picture. But first Bacon simply adds the white blotch, whether or not it fits into the painting... In Bacon's explanation of the meaning of the white spots and slashes that he added to the canvas so abruptly and almost thoughtlessly, he speaks of 'pure accident,' of 'instinct,' and that the picture almost paints itself. He says that the subconscious is finding expression in his his work."
Barbara Steffen, Chance and the Tradition of Art in Francis Bacon's Work, Francis Bacon & the Tradition of Art, Skira, 2003.
"Belcher was the subject of such portraits as Three Studies of Muriel Belcher (1966) and Sphinx - Portrait of Muriel Belcher (1979), a strangely plausible reincarnation. Ancient Egyptian art was driven by the impulse to immortalize the dead, and Bacon acknowledges this quality by choosing its defining monument to mark the passing of a friend....The studio contained an impressive number of books and book leaves on Egyptian art and civilization. Bacon believed that the achievement of Egyptian sculpture has scarcely been surpassed and even went so far as to say, 'I think perhaps the greatest images man has made so far have been in sculpture. I'm thinking of some of the great Egyptian sculpture, of course, and Greek sculptures too.'...It is not known when Bacon's passion for Egyptian are began. He made a trip to Cairo in the spring of 1951, when he viewed the Great Sphinx, on which he based a number of paintings in 1953 and 1954. The impact of Egyptian and Greek sculpture on Bacon's work can be detected in both the emphatic poses of his figures and the truncated limbs, which frequently resemble the fragments of ancient sculpture."
Margarita Cappock, Francis Bacon's Studio, Merrell London New York, 2005.
"Why were the Egyptians able not only apparently to make appearance but leave great images as well?... Like in my own life, I hope to be grandly instinctive. I don't think you capture the grandeur. The grandeur of form is a really instinctive thing, after all. What have I looked at all my life? I've looked at Egyptian things... and I exist in that way as a thing. Thing. Of course, I want to be the most brilliant thing that I can be."
Francis Bacon in conversation with Hugh M. Davies; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.
"Art then is a becoming and happening of truth...Truth is never gathered from things at hand, never from the ordinary. Rather, the opening up of the open region, and the clearing of beings, happens only when the openness that makes its advent in throwness is projected."
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.
"A painter, if he is going to attempt to record life, has to do it in a much more intense and curtailed way. It has to have the intensity of....you can call it sophisticated simplicity...the kind Egyptian sculpture has, which simplifies into reality. You have to abbreviate into intensity...I think that perhaps the greatest images that man has so far made have been in sculpture. I'm thinking of some of the great Egyptian sculpture..."
Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.
"Praise to thee, O Ra, when thou risest. Shine thou upon my face. Let me arise with thee into the heavens, and travel with thee in the boat wherein thou sailest on the clouds."
Osiris, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, circa 1200 BC.
"Air - catches - nothing. And this nothing? The most elementary condition of his existence, or his existance. Ek-sisting from the space of becoming - there."
Luce Irigaray, The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger, University of Texas Press, 1999.
"Projecting is the release of a throw by which unconcealedness submits and infuses itself into what is as such."
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.
"...a fixed staring at something that is purely present-at-hand..."
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 1927.
"...Does Time itself manifest itself as the Shining of Being?..."
Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006.
"The hidden attunement is better than the open."
Heraclitus of Ephesus, 540 BC - 480 BC.
The Eye of Amenhotep III 1400-1350 B.C.
Thrown Thoth is Initiated as Ammon-Ra's - Son and Amun as Alien always already hides Hidden away and afar and ahead of Thoth as Alien. Amun - as an abimage arises and appears through thrown Thoth. After Tossing Himself Off and Slurping up His Own Semen and Spitting it Out Amun spat Thoth Out into the World - onto the World - throwing Thoth forth - as an Ereignis Ejaculation. Tossing-Off His Tower in His own Hand Amun after then Taught Thoth how to Toss-Off and Throw-Forth-Thoth: for to Toss is also to Throw for Thoth - for Amun also taught Thoth - through Tossing-Off His Towering-Inferno Over His Own Head - then How to Activate Autofellatio - through Throwing His Legs over His Head - Heels-over-Head - Head-over-Helmet - Drooling Down on His Helmet - Coming to a Head - Coming over Head - Coming Off - Of - An Art Alien. Amun also often Comes off in His own Eyes blinding Himself to Being among beings. For Throwing is - Throwing Blind - as Throwing about Nothing - as thought is Thinking about Something. Thoth is the Throwist - as a Stylist - cutting through concepts and castrates categories and all other cages. Throws for Thoth are Throes as Throwing is Styling is a Flying is a Reeling and Retrieving of the Real. What is Thrown is Thoth - is Truth as the Non-Identity of the Thing Thrown - as the Truth Thrown for Throwing is never Identical. Hidden Amun hands Thoth the Handen. Thoth is Handed because Thoth is Blinded by the Semen Strike of Ra's rays. The Hand is the Eye that sees Blind handed over to the blinded Eye of the Ather - as the Eye of the Hand - as - Amun Hides in Thoth's Hand - that Hides the Eye of the Ather - that Throws up the Head of the Alien.
If Amun is Alien then Thoth is Bacon and both have No Identity and No Face - and Hide in Heads: - Hid in Hawk - Inside in Ibis: - and also Hide in Hands and Fit in Feet. If Amun as Alien is - the Hidden One - then Thoth as Bacon is - the Handed One. Amun - the Hidden - is hidden in the handen of Thoth: Amun always hides in the hand of Thoth - the Hidden Amun hands-the-hide to Thoth to throw the unhidden thrown out of hiddeness - for throwing is the unhiding and the untruthing of Truth - as a Truthing of Arting - Art then is the throwing and unhiding and becoming of Truth as Art. This throwing - as the joining of the out of joint of truth and art as truth-as-art - is the shining in itself - throwing out and showing off its shining - as a sensationing of being becoming being-art. Amun is the hiding away of Art which waits whiling awhile away Art awaiting waiting when will Thoth throw thought out of orbit death dealing dasein dice.
Hand of Thoth-Bacon The Handed OneKhnum
Bacon being Thoth and Alien being Amun are both essentially Egyptian Artists and are Egyptianist Sensationists and Thus have Nothing to Say only Something to Show and being akin to ancient Egyptian Art do not invite interpretation but call for contemplation as a castration of consciousness and a sensationing of our subconsciousness: Bacons images as Peppiatt correctly points out: "resist interpretation" contrary to Harrison's claim that they: "insist on it." Thoth-Bacon's images do not 'insist' on 'interpretation' but rather refuse interpretation rather resist interpretation meandering without meaning for Thoth-Bacon has 'nothing to say' only something-to-show something-to-sensation and ancient Egyptian Art does not 'invite interpretation' but instead calls forth for calm-concealing-contemplation while-with-waiting on our-opening-out of our subconscious-sea-sensationing. Essentialist Egyptianist Artists are: Alien, Archipenko, Bacon, Brancusi, Giacometti, Modigliani and Jawlensky.
Egyptian Art being Pure Being has nothing-to-say so remains silent only wanting-to-shine ahead to protect the dead. The golden gleam of Egyptian Art’s invisible silent shining blinds our sight like the sun so we stand dazzled and dazed blinded and bewildered before Being which is Art. Egyptian Art shimmers and shudders hovers and hoovers weaving with vacillating vibrations between life and death becoming being-dead as the after-life. Egyptian Art is the Throw of Being - Egyptian Art is the Flux of Being – Egyptian Art is the Vibration of Being - Egyptian Art is the Sensation of Being - blown between the air of being-alive and the dust of being-dead becoming the living-deading of the afterlife.
Khaki Khnum Self-Portrait A.V.E 18 June 2009
Alien-Amun and Bacon-Thoth do not Activate Art from the Head but from the Helmut and the Hand. Alien-Amun like Bacon-Thoth is Hidden by His Huge Hand and His Hard Helmet which Shines ahead of His Head through Its Wetness and abjects its Semeness through its Artness. As for Alien - as for Bacon - the Hand and the Penis shooting Semen are the Essential Tools for foam froth forming an auto-activated Art Alien: and not the Head: for Thoth-Bacon the Canvas is the Shrine of Divine Masturbation where the Hand throws the Semen of Being thrown out-of-the-world. Bacon as Thoth is the God of Throwing the Games of Chance. Bacon's Thoth throwing forth is a fort-da recovering and retrieving and revealing of dasein as deathsein as the Supplement of Semening. Bacon-Thoth throws the 'dice of death' as a death-dealing delivering desemening deathsein-da. Dasein-Dice means: being thrown out-into-nothing becoming being-death: Bacon-Thoth throw dice dasein death-throes as death-throws throwing the dice of death for the being time for the time being becoming-death: being-dead as the living-dead as the un-dead as being-the-no-thing as the dice does not lie so the dead do not die - the dice lay the dead lie - being-there - being thrown over-there being thrown over-ather aborted ahead afterdeath and alleviated as an afterlife being over-thrown out-of-orbit out-into-the-nothing of the night of the naught.
Portrait of M.V.E as Ra January 2008 Alex Alien
Thrown Thoth-Bacon Paints in the Noname of Ammon-Ra-Alien. Bacon-Thoth play the Plurality of Painting by Chance thrown Through wet wind with which Ammon-Ra Enters the Alien Orbit out of the World. Amun activates Paint thrown by Thoth in Order to Appear and Disappear back into being Alien. Thoth's Thrown Paint Passage is a Substitute and a Supplement to Aumn-Ra's radiating Semening Desemenation. Thoth Presents and Presence Amun's Absence through thrown Thothness. Thus Thoth-Bacon is a substitute for Ammon-Ra-Alien supplementing Alien and supplanting Alien-in-Absence. Thus the Thrown Paint of Thoth Displaces Amun's Desemenationing. Then Thoth Becomes Ather as Amun's Ather - Amun's Alien - as imitating images initiating abimages abjecting Alien ahead as a Desemenation Dissemination. Thus thrown Thoth traces Amun's abjected Semening Sensations and Symbols and Signs slipping and slurping ahead presencing-absencing tracing-the-trace of the nothing of the nothing. For Thoth - as for Amun - the thrown thrust Trace tears away at Representation rotting Representation retarding Representation revealing Representation redundant reeling in the real revealing the Real Thing: the Reel Thing - the Thrown Thing: throwing fort-da-dasein-dice nailing-the-nothing: Das Ding Das Death Das Dice Doing Death Doing Dice - throwing dice throwing death - as a throwing time - as a doing death. Dice Sein means: Being thrown out into the Nothing where death-throes leave Nothing to Chance. Throwing Leaves Nothing to Chance: Throwing Leaves The Nothing to Chance: Throwing is The Nothing of Chance. For Bacon-Thoth: to Throw is to Throw Time: the Time of Throwing: the Throwing of Time. When is the Time of Throwing? The Throwing of Time? The Time of Throwing as the Throwing of Times an Ereignis Eventing gives the gift of time to being so to throw is to throw being as time as giving time to being playing for time for the time being as an appropriative play projecting accidental appearances as an Answering and an Athering Throwing the Dice of Difference: throwing is the being of time being thrown. What is Thrown by Hand is presence-at-hand. What is Thrown at Hand by Hand out-of-hand is the Divine Nothingness of the Abject Sublime - for throwing forth out-of-hand lets-being-be by not being man-i-pulated by not being man-u-factured but by being thrown-out-of-hand where the air actually articulates attunes and attains ahead an abimage arrival. What Thoth Throws through the abundant and ambivalent air is the Divine Nothingness of the Abject Sublime.
Where was Throwing thrown forth from? What is the Origin of Throwing? Thoth. Where was the Origin of Throwing? Egypt. For Thoth 'thrownness' - as a 'thereness' thrown 'over thereness' of the 'life' and the 'death' of the dice - breaks the bank of being by becoming bankrupt as a thrown 'theftness' of a 'no-longer-thereness' of 'life' lost leaked away as a death-dasein-dice delivered into the thrust-thirst of the naught at the nothing of the night yet during the day Thoth-Bacon throws wonderful wounding-one-liner 'throw-a-way' phrases throwing-the-dice about 'life' and 'death': "there it is" or "here's to you" or "that's how it is" or "that's all there is" or "the brutality of fact" or "the beautiful wound" or "what's called art" or "what's called friendship" are as at the thrown eggo essential sensation state of Dasein’s Being and Bacon-Thoth's manic mood of "exhilarated despair" of "how one is". Bacon-Thoth becomes thrown through into stark states of oily anxiety and angst (about "nothing" because anxiety has no object only abject) which would serve sensations of oozed voluptuous violence, wonderful wounds, spurting sperm. For Heidegger-Anaximander and Bacon-Thoth atta-anxiety so sets us free opening up a freedom as "throwness": Bacon-Thoth's other 'throwness' is His Hand that throws the being of paint as paint as the being of becoming: for Bacon-Thoth the being of paint - by being thrown - becomes the becoming of prised paint becoming shape-shifted into initiated raw radical abjected atherness. The Thoth throw soul sole strategy of the Throwing through the body - arm - hand - penis - paint by Bacon-Thoth thrown fort-daing-dasein becomes for Heidegger the 'passageway' serving severing thrown through serving a atta raw radical 'displacement' and 'defamiliarization' and 'unconcealment' of oozed out sealed stuffs encapsulating 'estrangement effect'.
Throwing Thoth: Francis Bacon by Francis Giacobetti
Thoth-Bacon's brooding boiling body becomes the thrown opening ooze filter flow froth fuelling being bringing born becoming. Bacon-Thoth throws fort-da-dasein dice as a revealing rehearsal and register and repetition of death and the dead as the Living Dead throwing and transforming written-paint into spoken-paint as a painting-wristing-without-writing pushing the paint to speak without words through throwing the dice of difference: thrown-paint is not written-paint. Bacon-Thoth throws difference delivered into prised paint as the God of Painting-by-Chance - (and not: Painting-by-Numbers but Painting-through-thrown-Numbers) as the God of Deathing by Dice as a Death Dealer delivering the dice of dasein the dice of death. For Thoth-Bacon death happ-ends when throwing becomes hitting as the paint of pain is captured by the canvas: hitting becomes a kind of flattening-out-of-time looking like the lamella - time trapped - time flattened out - as beheaded-being - thrown time is literally caught by the canvas - as a materialised moment - as a mooding movement: For Thoth Throwing wins its Truth only when - in diced dismemberment - it finds itself - as time-trapped - beheading-being being-there - being-thrown-over - thrown over there. What is thrown over there? Paint is thrown over-there some-where. Paint - if that is what we want to call this thrown-thing, is of all things the most thrownful, and to hold fast what is thrown requires the greatest skill - for throwing is a carrying of death within it - paint carries death and maintains itself within it - as a life force - a thrown force - a thrown life - as a as a death throe - as a death thrown - as a da-sein throw-ness. Da-sein means: being Thrown out into the nothing - Throwing itself out into the Nothing. Da-sein throws Art ahead. Art throws out open an open out space - sensationed ahead as an abjected-abimage - as an atta-ather.
Throwing Thoth: Francis Bacon by Francis Giacobetti
Throwing is Showing the unseen Unconcealment. For Bacon-Thoth Throwing-the-Nothing is Throwing-for-Nothing - for the Nothing is Thrown - the Nothing is Shown - the Nothing comes from the Nothing - Thrown by the Nothing - from the Nothing - to the Nothing - giving the gift - giving the geist - of the Nothing. Throw-ing becomes this Thoth-ing forth only by Looking the Nothing in the Face and Sensatioing with It: this Sensationing with the Nothing is the Sensation that shape-shifts it into Being the Nothing. Where the Sensation of the Nothing becomes the awesome aura of the Being of Nothing at all as the Being of Sensation as all where Sensationing shines the Nothing of Being at all and for all Time and Being for all Time the Time of the Shine as the Shine of Being. Does Being itself manifest itself as the Shining of Time? Does Time itself manifest itself as the Shining of Being? Being and Time come together through the Shining of the Nothing. The Shining of the Nothing is Being with Time Doing the Nothing. Being and Time Doing the Nothing. Doing the Nothing There. There the Nothing is Doing. When doing nothing we are Doing the Nothing but doing-nothing is the most dreadfully difficult thing to do. We would much rather be dead than do-nothing but when we are dead we are at last doing-the-nothing thrown-ahead into-the-nothing and doing-time-doing-the-nothing.
In Throwing Thoth Bacon is Doing-the-Nothing: and doing-the-nothing through-throwing is a skilful-thing to-do as a skilful- being to-do as a being-to-be as a being-to-throw aiming all ahead at the nothing at all: for throwing-the-nothing is being being-thrown forth for the nothing as being-the noting thrown-there. Thoth-Bacon belongs-between Life and Death neither Alive nor Dead but in the interstice-initiated Living-Dead - as the Undead - as the Undiced - belonging both to all-time and no-time at all without a face with a face at all. For frothing Thoth-Bacon is the Nocturnal Servant of Ra - the bull among the boys - the moon among the men - beaming blueness - being blue - being boy - boy blue. Thoth-Bacon is the God of Chance: - A Dice - A Card: Crafty Calculating: - Sly - Slippery - Secretive - Seductive - Sedate - Serene - Silent: - as a da-sein-dice death-dealer throwing-throes. The Thrower has His Eye in His Hand. The Hand is the Blind Eye that Sees the Nothing. The Eye of the Hand Hears the Sight of Being. The Eye of the Hands Smells the Site of Being. The Eye of the Hand Touches the Sensation of Time. The Eye of the Hand Throws the Being of Time.
Amon-Min Self-Portrait A.V.E February 2009
Bacon-Thoth do not Throw through the Brain - but throw Through the Beheaded Body by Throwing through the Eye of the Hand - by by-passing the Brain. Bacon-Thoth throws through His Hand - Losing His Head: throws through boredom - throws through anxiety - throws through dread - thrown through dice - chasing chance - activating accident: - as arbitrary assaults - as anti-illustration illusion - as anti-narrative nothing - aiming and arriving ahead as an ab-vision as an ab-visible as an invisible-visible-visible-invisible - initiated through throwing severing semening sensationing. The thrown wet white warm whiplash - as a sweet-streak-semen-strike - as a binding-blinding-liquid-lightning-flash-frisson - stings the eye and severs the sight of the subject - severs the site of the subject - but binds the sightless subject to the site of the blind - by being blind to being-there by binding to the not being-there to begin-with whilst throwing ahead of a headless head - harnessing brooding beheaded beings - wandering whilst waiting wet where there the thrown white whiplash wonders without words aimed all ahead at a navigating nauseating needling nailed nothingness there through to the nothing alling attuned and attained as an atta ather abtarity abaesthetic abvisible abvision abeye abgaze.
Wepwawet-Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E Dec. 2008
The Gaze is Glazed over by the thin Skin of the Semen that Strikes at the Site of the Sight of the Egg of the Eye - that Cannot see it Coming - and Cannot catch it in Time - to close its Shutters - so the Eye of the Spectator becomes Coated and Congealed and Concealed and by a Skin of Semen - like leaked lamella - severing the sight of the subject - so the gaze thus becomes the glaze: - a blind-spot - a bind-spot - blinding-binding-being. The empirical (empty) eye is blind to the being of the thing being thrown - the extra X-Ray eye of Ra sees through seeing - sensing being blinded by being - but by becoming the thrown slime stuff - in-itself - thrown out-itself - by being binded by it - by being in it - by being severed sight - by becoming severed sensation - the site of sensation without sight: seeing-the-nothing - seeing-the-site of the nothing scene. For Bacon-Thoth nothing is seen - nothing is scene - nothing is screen: - nothing is materially seen in the mirror: - nothing is materially made out of nothing - out of throwing the nothingscene the nothingscape at the nothingscreen: - throwing at the screen of the nothing: - the black-whole of the black-hole of the mirror without meaning the mirror without mirroring: - the black-hole mirror is the materiality of the whole of the nothing: the nothing scene as the nothing seen in the nothing screen. Bacon-Thoth throws-blind - 'I throw therefore I am - blind' - binding blind being beyond the site of the sight - beyond the sight of the site: - violating vision - emptying out the egg of the eye of the I - activating an angoisse abeye and an abvision and an abimage as an arche Apeiron Apparition thrown through Thoth by being blind binding being to Seeing the Nothing ahead that sees through the Nothing there as the Something there that the seer never sees so that only the blind sees Being as the Nothing there being Something There that is Being There.
Francis Bacon as Ibis-headed Thoth Arnold Newman 1975
Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the Game - Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the House - Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the System - abjecting the abimage out-of-order - as an oozed out other order - ordaining an activated ather - as 'I' - as in 'eye' out an 'eye' - is thrown - is thrown-out - is throw away - ahead and away - afar and away - as a jettisoned-jouissance: 'I throw therefore I am - not' - 'I throw therefore I am - naught' - for: 'I am not there' - for: 'I am naught there' - for: 'I am nothing there'. Throwing is Being Nothing There. I am being not born: I am being abjected. I am not living: I am not dying: I am abjecting: always already abjecting. To Throw is to throw one out beyond oneself - to Throw oneself afar and ahead of oneself - aborted as a beheading off of oneself - by being thrown-out over there - as being-thrown ahead of one-self - as a-head being-ahead of-one where and when one is ahead of one as a-head of-one ahead a head.
As also already aiming afar and away: 'I throw therefore I am - abject' - abjected - as ahead of a head-of-being-t-here - 'I' am not the 'author' of 'actions' - 'I' did not 'do it' - 'it did it' - all of 'it' as none of 'it' - 'it did I' - 'it' did 'I' in - out-of-it - 'it' abjected 'I' - 'I' am 'not' therefore 'I' do not 'throw' - 'throw throws' - 'throws-throes' - 'death throws' - 'death throes' - the abject is ather - to the 'I' of the 'other' - of the no-'I' - of the 'no-other' - that throws 'it' - as the alien - of the nothing - thrown-there over-there. Thawed Thoth-Throws-Throes - Death-Die-Dice - abjecting ahead - an alluring alteric alien allumination - as an awesome aura - smearing semening sein.
Is throwing an art? Is art a throwing? Art is Thrown. For the Greeks art is thrown-by-hand: - as a hand-i-craft - as a throwing-techne - as techne means hand-man-u-facture - art is always already hand-made not mind-made - the mind does not make art - the hand - severed from the head - makes art ahead of the head. To throw is to throw ahead of one's head - to throw is to behead oneself - beyond oneself - the throw gathers itself together in the throw - in the time of the throw that gathers the nothing throwing is gathered - a gathering of time not taking time - a gathering of time taking time giving time. Throwing is a Gathering of a Sending of a Retrieving of Time. Time throws art ahead of time for the time being for the being time for the time of an alien being to come after the time has come for being.
Alexander the Great on the Underground 1977
Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of Da-Sein and Freud's Fort Da Dice deal dealing and deliver Bacon-Thoth's Throwing-Being - as a raw real register oozing of being Becoming Thrown back-forth over on one's self forward-backwards all the time all over time where the thrown pushed paint shot splatters back before on one's face from the tawny cantankerous canvas: a fucked-face covered in one's own cum coming to ahead towards one's head The Further you Throw the Closer you Become because the Further you Throw the Nearer you Become to the Truth of Alien Being out-the-world. Van Gogh and Bacon stated that the more 'unreal' you make the Image the more chance there is of 'it' being real. Thoth-Bull-Bacon bled bare: "I would like to make images which reflect all kinds of things that I feel instinctively about my own species, and I would like, in my arbitrary way, to bring one nearer to the actual human being...I get nearer by going farther away." As Thrown Thoth-Bacon gets: 'nearer by going farther away' by being Egyptian - by becoming Bull - by throwing Thoth - by activating Amun - by revealing Ra - by reeling the Real. Bacon-Thoth throw the-time-being as a mastering measuring-the-time for the-being-time. Thoth Throws the Truth of Time. Thoth Throws the Time of Truth: Death Dealing Dasein Dice: Leaving Nothing to Chance: Leaving the Nothing to Chance - Thoth throws the Number Nothing: the Number Naught: Naught is the Number of the Nothing - Comeing before - and - after - One. The Naught is always already added after and added before the One. Naught comes after One as Naught Comes over One: the Naught - as the Nothing - Comes over and Covers One. The Naught is always already within The One: The Naught belongs to the One and always already remains remaindered within The One: The naught is The Nothing of The One: The One is the Naught and The Naught is The One and The Naught and The One are The Nothing: The Nothing is The One. The Nothing-One - with will-without-will what Thoth threw as: "all the foam of its freshness" still clinging to it. What is the time of throwing for the throwing of time for Thoth-Bacon? That is: the zeit-spiel-raum of the throwing-being-there as a zeitig as an existence-without-being? The ejeculated economy of existence being-thrown-ahead without-being-there? But being thrown over there as ather as gathered and grounded and grinded ahead as an awareness of being-thrown-over-there ahead of one's self onto the coverted canvas. For Bacon-Thoth zeitig is the throwing-at-the-right-time by not thinking about the time to throw where we will-to-lose-one's will where willing dice deliver dasein disclosed.
Head of Alexander the Great circa 320 - 300 B.C.
For Bacon-Thoth Throwing paint ahead at the right place at the right time projects primordial presence as throwing existence - without being - without representation: to throw is to throw time throwing the being of time for the time being for the time of being for the being of time. To repeat and rehearse the throw as a mood of the movement of the moment: to throw is also to throw a mood: one throws a mood: one is thrown into a mood one is thrown out of a mood: mood throws one: one throws mood: one is in and out of a mood a la mode de fort-da-dicing. Thoth Bacon broods brooding mooding - Bacon being moody - in a bad mood - in a good mood - the same-difference. For Bacon-Thoth mooding colours throwing and throwing colours mooding making mercurial mood swings switching on and off as a switch in a split second from one to an ather: and any mood can come up as any number can come up at ant time. What is thrown? Lighting is thrown - as a lightening strike - as a semen strike - as a source of light and a sauce of light that lights: that throws light on to the manipulated mass matter and activated abjected accidents of our Thoth-Bacon bathed beings. Bacon-Thoth is all throwing all knowing and not everyone can throw not everyone can know: not everyone can know how to throw or what to do with the thrown thing after the throwing after the knowing of the throwing and the when and the where of throwing of knowing of the nothing. Bacon-Thoth does not have 'spare time on his hand' but 'rare time in his hand' to be thrown time so that time is not killed: time is rather born through throwing as living-time against killing-time which is a reactionary and regressive forgetting of time as being and being and time: killing-time is killing-being: killing-time is an action abject more murderous than killing-being for it is killing the time of being: to kill time is to kill-being for time is time for being-time of being to be time for being to time being for. The forgetting of being is actually a forgetting-of-the-time of being of the being-of-time which waits for being to come to time for time waits for man to become being with time and in time to become being-time and in-time being-time becomes being without time for the matter of time becomes the matter of being the matter for being to become Being.
Aqualine Amun Self Portrait Alex Alien 2006
What is thrown? What is thrown is: the sensation of time - what is thrown is: the sensation of time thrown-through-time - becoming-being-time. Time is a Thing - Time is a Thing Thrown - thrown ahead as a time of a thing as a thing of time: things have their time as times have their thing - time is a thing that has things and has time for things to come - coming to their time in time the thing to come in time - time is a thing that things through time for things have their time times have their thing - the thing time has time for is being but being does not have the time does not have the time for being does not have the being for time so being does time for being all the time without knowing the time of being to be the time for the time-being for the being-time for being is all the time not in time out of time with beingout of being with time until death unites being to time as the time of being becoming being-time for the time-being all-time all-being forever-timebeing beingfree from time all the time without beingtime.
What is thrown ahead of being and time is the throwing itself -as the throwing ahead of the nothing - the nothing-being-thrown. An abjected alienality known as the naught of the nothing where nothing is thrown where nothing happens: as an abjected nothingness through throwing nothing actually happens: nothing actually abssoluted happens as a thinghood of time thrown time throwing as a happening at the right time as a sein zeiting sensation. Through throwing dice da-sein discovers its initiated emptithrowness: the thrown overflowingfullness of the nothingbeingthere. What is thrown ahead is an overalien as a head oozing and overflowing with an eggy engulfing and emerging emptying where the fullness of the nothing overflows on to something over there: as a stain-sein and as a zeit-stain. For brooding Bacon-Thoth Throwing-Time as Being-Time is the Overflowing of the Nothing: that-it-is there-it-is: here happening navigating nothing. The Emptiness of Being as The Fullness of the Nothing: the Brutality of Fact: why then is there Nothing rather than Something? What is the Time of Throwing? The Time of Throwing is the Time of Truth Bursting Open and Overflowing all Over Space with The Nothing where Time and Truth and the Nothing collide and collude and collapse together apart as a Profane Presence - as an Alluring Allumination - as a Mass Matter - as a Dark Dasein Leaking Light. Through Throwing the Nothing - Nothing is Thrown: - Nothing Happens - Nothing Comes - Nothing Appears - Nothing is Unconcealed: Throwing Da-sein is Knowing the Nothing. Da-sein sensations: being Thrown out into the Nothing. Being Thrown out of one's self is Being Nothing. The Nothing is the totality of beings. The Nothing is the totality of beings being Thrown. The Nothing is the totality of beings being Thrown through The Thing. The Thing throws the Truth at Hand. Truth is Thrown by Things at Hand by by Things to Hand by Things in Hand as the Throwing-into-Art of Truth - throes thrusting up ahead - an awesome-alluring-alien-abimage Beholden - Behanden - Beheaden as a Beheaded being before you all ahead with a hard on without a head-on and after being-be-headed your head becomes your hard-on and you fuck-infinity ahead be-head with your hard-head.
Alien-Amun abseen ahead soaking in his Spunk Stained studio mirror
Bacon-Thoth abseen ahead in his Paint Splattered studio mirror
What is thrown ahead is a head of a being by Bacon-Thoth - thrown through part-ed-pain-t - projected pointed ahead - as a porous-portrait: for Thoth-Bacon pain-ting a por-trait as a thrown-thing ahead is in-itiating be-heading being t-here by be-ing thrown out over there: to paint a por-trait is a sign of signing the death warrant of de-parting da-sein - as a sign of sev-ering life - ser-ving death - as a passport-passageway to the deathworld of the beingdead as the livingdead: de-livering Dyer - Lacy - Edwards exited exiled early - as an ex-ecuted er-eignis. Through throwing ahead a head Thoth-Bacon 'kills-the-thing' thrown through the lust and lustre of pain-t - where when wet porous-portraiture - as a paint-ed pain-t - activates and attunes as a poison and a potion - as a passion and a possession. What is thrown ahead is not a trace of the time at hand in hand being thrown ahead by hand - what is thrown ahead is not the trace of being being thrown - what is thrown ahead is a projected pure presence off-of an abjected absolute absence: - as a presentation - and not as a representation. In Throwing ahead an alien abimage Bacon-Thoth does not represent an any-thing - or any-some-thing - no - not at all - actually Bacon-Thoth present a no-thing at all - as absolutely the nothing at all - and for all to see for nothing at all - for all there-is-there is the nothing at all - and there-is the-nothing-there that is the afterlife there.
Bacon-Thoth's Eternal Throwing as the Eternal Return of Art is the Fort Da Fluxing of the Eternal Coming of Amun-Ra radiating reeling opening oozing out forever full flooded returning ready coming clean well wet dry wet dry wet dry wet dry wet. Amun is to Art as Thoth is to Throw. Art is Being in the Throw. The Throw is the Time of Art. For Bacon-Thoth Eternal Throwing is Throwing Time all the time not-in-time out-of-time as Time Space through Time Speed and Time Ather where the Thrust of the Throwing thrusts the Intensity of Becoming Being Time all the time. To Throw is to Become: Throwing for Bacon is Becoming. Throwing is the coming together of Being and Time as Beingtime. To Throw is to Think of Being as Time. Bacon Thoth Throws Beingtime. For Bacon-Thoth the AbImage cannot be Known only Thrown out-of-time all the time which is why art can never be 'contemporary' for art is out-of-time all the time and abjected ahead as an Amuning eggsisting exiting existentia. Bacon defines Existentia as the self-sensationing aborted abimage of our absolute-alienality.
Anhur Anterior Self-Portrait A.V.E February 2009
Nietzsche-Zarathustra throws Existentia as the Eternal Recurrence of the Sensation as a Becoming Alien again as the sensessence of the alien lies in its egg-sistence before being Becomes broken into out as the egg of the eternal return. Amun Egg-sistence: the cracking open and oozing out of being - Becomes the semening sensessence of the alien being - that is - only of the alteric alien watery way to be leaked for as far as our sensation sows only the abject alien being is admitted to the dense destiny of oozed out exited eggs-sistence scape attuned as leaking out beyond being itself initiating soaking serene sacred semen sensationing as a shimmering shuddering shinning. Bacon is the Bull among the Shit - the Bull among the Semen - the Bull among the Sun - the Bull among the Stars: Bacon Bull's Thoth Throat is Cut clean by Amun's Liquid Lightning Bolt Slash of Semen striking toward the Sun - because Bacon Loved Orange - because Bacon Loved Ra. Bull Bacon's arresting Amun Ra and Bull (1987): An Airborne Amun darts down aiming ahead at the tossing Bull Out of the Blue - Out of Osis Thrust towards the Buckling Bull - then the brave Bull is burnt Blue by the thrown thrust oust Orange Orb of Reigning Ra. By becoming bright Blue - Thoth thrown - becomes the God of the Moon - merging and eclipsing the melting Sun severing Ra serving Amun-Ra - hiding Amun hidden - inhabiting Ibis - exiting Egg - creating Crocodile - revealing Ram ramming Thoth. As Amun-Ra-m ramming reveals also ahead a Head of a Ram - and a Head of a Crocodile heading a Crown of the Solar Circle. Amun-Ra-m is the Lord of Plumes - the Lord of Perfumes - the Lord of Scales - the Lord of Skins: - the Lord of Transmutations - as anointed Amun-Ra-m is a Shape-shifting Ram-Reptilian Alter-Alien always abjecting all aiming ahead an alluring acidic monstrous moisture falling forth from its intensely inviting meandering moat mouth divinely delicious droooling delighted dasein.
Wepwawet-Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E Dec. 2008
At another age Amun-Ra-Temu at Thebes has the Head of a Hawk Surmounted by the Solar Circle encircled by a Slithering Serpent. Amun is the God of Many Names and the God of All Ages and the God of the No Name and the God of the No Now. As absolute abjection Amun is the No God of the No Time of the No Name of the No Nothing - time and again always away arising afar and all away. What is thrown ahead of being and time is also the throwing of The Nothing itself -as the throwing ahead of The Nothing - the nothing-being-thrown towards The Nothing at all. Not all-or-nothing - but The Nothing-All. What is The Nothing Thrown? Where is The Nothing Thrown? What is The Nothing if it is not nothing at all? The Nothing is not the nothing - not the nothing that is the nothing at all: The Nothing is the all of the nothing - for The Nothing never dies - Nothing-does - The Nothing-does-Happen - The Nothing dices - The Nothing does not die - for The Nothing matters - death matters - death does matter - death matters The Nothing - The Nothing abjects ahead as a moving matter scapeing and scanning the Something - Nothing happens to the Something - death happnes just as nothing happens - we are always doing-the-nothing in doing the something we do nothing in doing The Nothing at all and not something at all. Not alien art for art's sake but alien art for nothing's sake - alien art for the sake of nothing - alien art is for the nothing's sake - not for the sake of the something - for art is not a something - or an anything - art is a nothing - a nothing at all - for The Nothing at all. Art is not for all - not for the all - art is for the no one - The Nothing: art is for nothing. Art is for Nothing at all. Art is The Nothing - and The Nothing is not the nothing - not the nothing at all. The Nothing is at all the Nothing is All. The Nothing is Thrown. All of The Nothing. Thrown. The Nothing is not the Known the Noting is the Thrown as Thrown ahead of the Known which is never Known at all for only the Thrown is Known as The Nothing Thrown as The Nothing Known and only those that know-how-throw know that there is nothing-to-know of The Nothing for the throwing is the knowing of The Nothing.
The (thrown) Nothing (e)scapes All: no-one can (e)scape the Throw of The Nothing: the-nothing-thrown: the throw-scape of the nothing-there: the-no-one is scaped scanned and scattered and subsumed through the nailing of the navigating The Nothing: - the no-one is scanned and scaped by The Nothing at all thrown - through the scan-scape of The Nothing - scapeing-the-subject: - shuddering the subject - shredding the subject - shattering the subject - smothering the subject: - severing the site and the sight of the subject: - smouldered and smelted and skinned alive and ahead - as a sutured-subject served-severed: - abjected and beheaded - by becoming being-abject as an abscape at one with The Nothing. The thin skin-scape of The Nothing seals off and out the skin of the skinned subsumed subject as an activated abscape: The Nothing is always already coaxing its way in and closing in on you all - coming towards you - coming all over you -covering you all up in the thrown thick stuff-scape of The Nothing there: - covering and concealing consuming and containing all of your nothing at all - by being scaped and scraped up - all up - thrown through The Nothing - throwing out of Thought out of the Nothing since the Nothing matters much more than the matter that Thoughts. The Nothing matters for the Thought that does not matter for the Nothing. The Nothing matters being-for-nothing for the Nothing is far fuller-for-forging being-for-time that Thinking fails-for-fulfil. The Nothing is the Fulling of Thinking: the full-thinging is the fill-thinking as a throwing-for-nothing: for thinking is throwing-for-nothing thanking the thinging for the Fulfilling of the Nothing. Thinking is the Thinging of the Thing of the Nothing that throws thought for being to become being to begin with by being with words as thoughts thrown away ahead.
Portrait of M.V.E as Ptah A.V.E 2007
Thought-Thrown - as a Thinking-Throwing matters-mind - as a mind-matters as a think-thing: Thinking-is-a-Thinging - as a Thinging-Thinking: - as a Thinking-Thinging: to think is to throw thought away by being thoughtless by being mindless by being headless: Thinking is ahead after Throwing as an action activates a Thought through Throwing thought away. Throwing throws Thought thrown. The Thought of the Theory is always already after the Throw of the Theory of Thought. To Throw is to throw a Thing: a Thinking-Thing as always already a Mood-Thing a Time-Thing: the Time of Mood the Mood of Time. Throwing throws before Thinking thinks to throw for Time is throw ahead of Thought and Time is the Void that Holds and Pours the Liquid of Though through the Air of Time How does the Hold of Time throw the Thought of the Nothing? It pours - It spills - It leaks - It gushes - through the air of time. As a thrown Thing Thought thirsts - thrusting ahead - as a Liquid Leakage - seeping and soaking - thoroughly through the naught of The Nothing. Thinking being is Thrown ahead as an after Thought before being Thinking thinks to Throw being. Throwing is initiated as an activated Thought abjected ahead without Thinking about it. Throwing decapitates Thinking from being-thought-about by being-thrown-about. The Thinking is really the real thing of the Thinging as an Abjecting for what we call 'Thinking' is really an 'Abjecting'. The Thinking originates outside ourselves as an Abjecting ahead as The Nothing at all as all that Comes to Thought as the Coming of Thinking there as the coming off of Thinking that Throwing throws Thoth thought forth for.
Cheers! Francis Bacon at Les Halles, Paris 1977 Claude Azoulay
Though Throwing through The Nothing is Hard - The Nothing is Hard - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Throw - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Throw Through - Throwing through The Nothing is a Hard Thing - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Think about - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Thing about - and The Nothing is a Heavy Thing to Throw about - to Throw Through - to Throw Thought -for The Nothing Heavy weighs down - weighs down on you all - as a Heavy Thing - for The Nothing is the heaviest Thing of all things - the matter of The Nothing is the matter of the all - all at once - coming down on you all - The Nothing is the Thickest Thing of all - of the all - all at once - so to hold fast on to The Nothing Heavy requires the Hardest Hand - free from fear - free from force - by becoming heavier and harder than The Thing of The Nothing coming down all over you all. Nothing-Happens when where nothing-is-happening to you all at all - as an erupting Ereignis-Ereignet erection - as an enticing encouraging engulfing envelopment. Where and when there the Nothing-Happens: - Time-Matters - as nothing-matters - so time-matters as a matter-of-time - and as a matter-of-nothing: - as a matter-of-fact - for time is a matter-of-fact - a fact-of-matter - as nothing is a matter-of-fact: time is a thing: - a material-thing as well as a mood-thing: - a mood-thing-thrown - a time-thing-thrown: through-throwing time-matters - time matters as a matter-of-fact - as a fact-of-matter: time is a fact-of-matter as a matter-of-fact being thrown through the nothing that matters time time itself as a matter of time: time matters - as - time-is-matter: it is a matter-of-time: the nothing is a matter of time - as - the nothing is the matter of time - as all is a matter of time - all is a matter of time all the time. As a Time that Matters: Throwing is a Gathering of Time - Throwing is a Giving of Time through Sending Time Thrown the Retrieving of Time not the Taking of Time at the same time Time is a Thing that Gathers together through Throwing the Nothing through Retrieving the Nothing through Holding the Nothing through Pouring the Nothing out. The Nothing pours out. The Nothing pours out of The Open. Throwing draws The Open open - opening out of The Nothing - Throwing throws through The Open opening as an opening out of The Nothing at all as all. The Nothing is Heavy. The Nothing is Full. For Thoth though - through Throwing - the Nothing becomes Light - the Nothing becomes Voidful. The Nothing is Voidful. The Nothing is a Voidful about. The Nothing is Aboutful. The Nothing is Thrown About. The Nothing is Thrown about the Voidful. The Voidful is Aboutful. Aboutful and ahead of the Throwful of Thoth.
Amun Comes to a Head at the End of the Night. But at the Beginning of the Day Bacon's Bull Being Throws Thoth Time at the Beginning of the Night. As Thrown Thoth Bacon's Bull breaks forth from being-in-the-world to being out-the-world Thrown thrusting Toward the Orange orbit of the Reigning Ra ramming Temporality Thrown. Through Thoth throwing there then bled Bacon in initiation is: "making things available" through throwing in space in time all the time there then "making the farness vanish" bled by "bringing things close" by taking out space and time all the time (Being & Time, 139, 105). Bacon bled: the further you throw the further you remove and retrieve the thrown alien object closer away to from you like leaked Freud's frothy Fort Da Flux game again and again and again: to throw is to retrieve the trace and space of (not) being out (over) there-here. But Bacon bled: the more artificial you can make 'it' the more 'chance' you have of 'it' both 'being' and 'looking' much more real and you always get nearer to being by being further away from being for to be being is to be ahead of being as being-thrown-ahead. For Freud and Bacon Throwing these things there as a radical retrieving Throws thoth Time bled back in-on-itself proving painfully and also logically leaked that Time is not 'linear' but 'circular' as in Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence: Time does not 'move on' but 'bleeds back' fast-forward imploding in-on-out itself instead. There 'is' no Time 'like the present' as the 'present' is always already absent outside of thrown time all the time not in time with the now not now.
Severed-Seth Self-Portrait A.V.E 2008
There is no Time like Art - like Art Time as Art is the Truth of Time. Art is not a Question of Time: Art is an Answer to Time. Art is the Answer to the Time of the Nothing: the Time of Throwing is the Art of Time. Art is the Remainder and Reminder of the Memory of Time and the Mood of Being. Art is the Being of Time: Art reveals the Nothing: Art leaves us hung - hanging - headless: hollowed out of ourselves - abjected away as a draining dasein delivering difference. Bacon-Thoth throw Time throes abjected ahead of our time thrown as a semening silhouette sensation time trace tracing the time of the abjected ather. For Bacon-Thoth - Through Throwing - Time Throws - Time Thoes - Time Travels - Time Flies - Time Flees arriving ahead as Ather afar and after before Being being born beheaded by beginning being ending executed. For Bacon-Thoth: to know time is to throw time: to be throw in time out of time all the time. For Bacon-Thoth: - time is not tellable: - time is touchable - time is tasteable - time is seeable - time is smellable: time is the sensation of being. Beings 'want the time' - 'want the have the time' - 'want to have more time' - 'to save the time' - 'to take less time' - 'to kill time' - that is: 'to kill being'. What is time for? Time is for Nothing. Who is time for? Time is for Nothing. Nothing is for Time. Time is for no-one. No-one is for Time. No-one has the time - no-one will ever have time have-the-time - the time cannot be had: time cannot be timed: time is thrown - always already ahead - as after and aside inside itself by being before being-time being out-of-joint joining-time-being by coming ahead all over time time and time again. The Cuming off of Amun is the Clearing of Being being born through Thoth the liquid light that throws being ahead. After Amun has Cum to a Head Thoth carries Amun's cuming off and ahead and away and awaiting a Cuming again and again as a firm-froth thoth-thrusting Coming to a head as a Head as a head of time as a head of being ahead of being ahead of time Beheading being to time all the time Bringing being to time Becoming being time for all time and for all being and all for nothing at all for nothing at all that is coming as the coming of the time waiting for being becoming the time of the nothing.
Amun-Ra's Ereignis Erection
As Bacon bled to Beard: "Repetition can put one into a kind of trance-like state that you would never experience from a single image. The image repeated constantly puts you into a state of trance where it begins to work on you in different ways. I think that has happened with certain painters....one knows that people can be driven mad by the sound of dripping water. It may be the fact that they can't stop it or that it takes them over from their own obsession of themselves and the drip, drip, drip of the water takes them away into somewhere out of themselves where they begin to go mad." (Bacon from Remarks from an Interview with Peter Beard). Bacon's bed-ed bodies buggering in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out throwing the subject oozed out of the self all out of joint where contours collapse and human subject becomes born as an alien oozed out object as an abjecting and freeing fucking force freeing being by becoming be-ing. Furious Fucking - as a fort-da-force - severs spent subjectivity where being becomes be-ing and activated an alluring alien abjectivity as an Aleatoric Alétheia thrust through Thoth-Bacon's Game of Chance as an angoisse Alien Ather.
Amun-Ra Ereignis-Erection Alex Alien Russell 1980
For Fucking Forth is not a Sex Act between Beings but an Alien Event for Fort-Daing the Eternal Return of the Alien for Fucking has Nothing to do with Sexuality at all and all to do with Alienality as an anal-aliening-athering for there are no sexed-subjects anymore only our anonymous alien-athers all alight and all wet with foreign-feelings and strange-sensations. For Fuck-ing as a Futur-ing is always already an alien-ate-ing-ahead as an ab-ject-ing of the 'I' being there which is why there is always minus two eyes being there where one and one make minus one minus one plus the nothing there looking into the no eyes that are always never there. Fucking is the reeling repetition of the realing thing reeling in and reeling out the realing coming off all over the other as an alien abduction attuned and attained and initiated inside as the invasion of the body snatchers taking being back to be-ing time again as an alien time to be-ing ali-en by be-ing without a body again as the alien was always a no body at all and a no body with a no head on for the face of an alien is without a head-on only with a hard-on with a mind of its own all of its own coming-off on its own without thinking about it at all all the time coming to a head coming-headless off its head fast all over its face all hard without a head all head all hard ahead a head adead a dead and being-all-hard is being-all-ahead being-all-adead and being-all-ahead being-hard-being-ahead is being-infinite as the infinite is being-all-hard which is too hard for the soft-finite to understand.
Seething Seth Self-Portrait A.V.E 21.09.09
Fucking is Flying whilst Dwelling is Earthing being bound to the ground as Earthbounding whilst Fucking flies forth and All Ahead as an aborted abground sprung Spunking. Fucking forth is fucking for the Godhead as the Absolute Nothingness coming along ahead of God as a Return of Amun beheading the God behind the Godhead becoming the Headgod attended and amended awaiting Amentet as a Hardon Headon coming to a Head and coming off all over You All.
Amun is the Absolute and the Essential Headgod as the Godhead ahead of God who cannot come to Being because God cannot come to Being God to begin with or to begin without at all so God fucked all but became fuck all so fucked forth fucking Being there to be fucking forth for God being there for Being coming for God who cannot Come for God cannot come off for God for God fucks for Being that fucked forth for God for a God that cannot Come for only Amun can Come coming all over again but by coming off without coming to being with Being because Amun is the Spunk Divine Sublime Dread Headgod that comes to a Head becoming a Godhead coming ahead all over God behind Being.
Alex Alien 1981
Experiencing and Executing and Exiting being-as-thrown-thoth time out-of-itself is attuned activated and available through the Chinese Water Torture: so as constant dripping wears away a stone so the sown drip drip drip on the fixed forehead initiates insanity throwing being out of body into time where the sunk subject of being be-comes thrown over to the ob-ject of time off-time as the thing of being time in-it-self drip-ping out-of-it-self out-of-join-t-out-of-ti-me. Our or-bit ooz-ing out-of-body exit-ing ex-perience is be-ing-time-in-it-self out-of-body by be-ing-in-time. Thus the Chinese Water Torture throws forth the hollow-ing out of the sub-ject be-coming the hollo-wing out-of-being be-coming be-ing-out-of-time be-ing-time-out-of-it-self by be-ing be-ing-time-out-of-time-be-ing act-ivat-ing an anogoisse aleatoric alétheia abyss abliss free floating fluid fixity from tapping ticking tickling trickling tricking time torn-ap-art-as-stasis splashing splattering sensation severing seeping skin drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop ad abjected ad nauseum ab infinitum.
Alien Allan Pettersson's nauseous Ninth Symphony (1970) is the thoth-thrown forth-da-flux falling and pulling and pushing and paining of outted trodden time to ining spiralling stasis space sailing swaying back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth forgetting where wair going goning gone go not now nothing where wheir whair to tart time taken to task pulverising time is pulsating time is pouting time is pulling time is prodding time is projecting time thrown through potenting pourings by being bodied. Bacon bled to Sylvester: "Anything I paint, if it comes off at all in my work, I feel in myself. If I don't feel it physically, I know it just can't be working. With all the figures that work, I feel that this is physically right, and this is a thing I feel within my body." Sylvester responded: "As you're painting a figure you feel its a gesture in your own body." Bacon back: "Yes, I do." (Looking Back at Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 2000).
"I can only hope that the throwing of paint onto the already-made image or half-image will either re-form the image or that I will be able to manipulate the paint further into - anyway, for me - greater intensity....Half my painting activity is disrupting what I can do with ease." (Francis Bacon, Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987). The thrown torn alien art oozed object as a thrown 'thing-out-itself' is aborted-outer-orbit as an 'un-this-worldly-object' becoming but never nearly afar arriving away afterwards at all the time thirst thrust thrown there though then thrown out-of-there out-of-time out-of-being out-of-it.
Man Becoming Bull 1977 Francis Bacon
But where and when here had Bacon-Thoth been thrown before Thoth-Bacon began throwing? How do we attune to and attend to Thoth-Bacon's Being Throwness and Thoth-Bacon Becoming Throwing? Bacon does not 'choose' Thoth's 'throwness' but 'orders' Thoth's 'throwing' by 'chance' by knowing the target and time to throw by using his own Embodied Throwness as the beginning of becoming through throwing and being thrown ahead and away by Amun. In in-being Thrown Thoth-Bacon did not 'choose' the way Thoth-Bacon was thrown into Being Alien but 'chose' through 'chance' how to Throw Being through Becoming through Paint and Pain. Bacon 'chose' to eggsist and 'chose' to eggist in his alien body but by 'chance' and at a Throwness for Bacon Being towards Becoming is oozed ordered via the Body through Thrown Chance. But Bacon did not 'choose' to be thrown forth as being 'Human' but be always already be-headed ahead as an 'Alien Outside' of our 'Human Throwness' thrown there towards away as an Alien Thoth Throwness as atta Aleatory and atta Aleatoric and Alteric and Altaric as arisen Amun Alerted as arisen Amun Altered by becoming be-being Bacon after Thoth thrown be-coming all Amun again and alighting after alerting an arriving alteric Alien appearing ahead as an alluring atta aten aura.
Amun Nose & Lips & the No Eyes
But Bacon-Thoth shows us Through Throwing that we can actually grip grasp and catch our Throwness as a raw register of Being towards Becoming Alien through the bled movement of the Body scent sense Through Thrown pain paint. Bacons bodily Thoth Throwness is disclosed and disseminated to us violently via his heated sewer swamp state of oozed mudded mind and neurotic nervous system (Bacon Befindlichkeit). But for Bacon Eggsistence means to be Thrown into Impossibility all the time out-of-time in time. For Bacon-Thoth 'chance' and 'throwing' are present-at-hand gift giving 'games' which severe body-time-space all the time where Throwing Forward is also a Retrieving Back a la Freud's Fort Da game again and again. But what does Bacon Throw? Bacon Throws his nervous system via the hand through the materiality of paint. Bacon bled: "Painting is the pattern of one's nervous system being projected on the canvas." The Thrown Paint is the Sensation of the nervous system being Thrown on the Canvas as an atta attack alien Aleatoric Altarity.
Kinetic Khepri Self-Portrait A.V.E Nov. 2008
But Throwing for Thoth-Bacon opens up the possibility of impossibility as the thrown alien art of the thrown future frothed Throwness where we can Image our authentic Alien Being by being open to - and in tune with - the timing and spacing and becoming of our Alien Throwness beyond the ex-Human (which cannot grasp its Being or Throwness because it is in fact gone away somewhere no longer present at hand unavailable void extinct). But through Bacon's Throwing we can understand the 'it': the Thrown slurp stuff ontological ooze of an authentic Alien Being. For Bacon thoth Throwing is trapping and then revealing Unhiddenness so throwing throws up the possibility of the impossibility to make the Image shine as New. But you both do not see the Unhiddenness of the New shining Image because it is so shimmeringly shiny that it blinds your blindness blinded so you will only ever see it once you are dead and now you are dead you can see the shining 'New Image' as it gives you 'blinding light' to see because when you were alive you never saw nothing New by being blinded. But be-re remember the thrown real radically 'New' is the uncanny underside of the radically 'Old' ancient alien art and a long lost long forgotten froth forever still sleeping silent Thrown thrusting fresh froth fast forward flying ahead-of-behind the 'contemporary' of 'human' no-time like the present for the pure-presence of being-new is found in the fresh frisson of ancient Egyptian Art for only the old is forever the new for now there is no-now for being-now for time-now.
Head of Queen Tiye, ca. 1352–1336 B.C.E.
The Thoth thrown birth being alien of the Alien as an atta aten abject abyss angoisse execstatic eggsistence always already aborted ahead and away as a 'way of relating' to the wound womb world and always to take a stance stake steak so-in-out the thrown world without entering in it at all. An alluring alien aleatory floats flickers forms ferments oozing outside world wound. Throwing forth for Thoth-Bacon is being-there as a not-there at all all at the same-time no-time as being-thrown-all ahead of the inside-outside as a froth free from ego ejaculating eggo ecstatic euphoria enacting erratic erotic ripe rape rapture rupture thorn thrust thirst thrown there freeing fresh frowzy fluent fluorescent filamment forward as an alteric alien Aletheia aroma as an eggo essence emptied ego oozed out open over towards the trickle trill tremor tingle throb thoth throttle through rippling rhizome reel real region serving serene semen scapes splicing her hard harpy head altogether all apart absolutely absorbing an aboriginal absent being by being beautifully beheaded as aheaded and abjected aborted afar and away abroad lingering leaving left lithe lisp lips locked wed whilst waiting weld weldt wet where when wet ever even when even for ever for even ever for ever even for.
Frauenkopf 1911 Alexej von Jawlensky
Alien Being is an atta angoisse awful awe oozed object of an atta ab-jected ahead thirst thrust Thrown outside orbit over our eerie earth's eggbit. Nor now do does an Alien Being be sit set well within the then World wound wonder as a sealed Subject served severed as an alien ather other orbiting objecting floating forever forward froth actually ahead of our severed supine subject (being boringly hideously human). An authentic atta alien born being is in Thrown Out-into-the-World but being floating never making a landing because the Thrown abject Alien abyss does defy grounded gravity always already and flies forth frothing forever free. Alien Being Throws itself bled bare Beyond the thrown World and but beyond Itself in being-projected-in Throwness always already oozed outside itself in its inked initiation. Alien Eggsistence flies-floats outside over the World but abyss always well within ready reach on of Throwing 'itself' Beyond and Through 'it' to the other side of 'it' towards further thrown possibilities through the hole horizon of other real regions. But what does bored Baon really Throw thoth forth froth? Bacon being Thoth Throws the eggo Ecstasy of the alien awe aura aroma abyss off-of the then oozed out Abject Sublime as an exiled eggo expendicture empties out of our subjective substances senstioning spunked psyche soggy substances spilt spilling out of outside-in 'its' inked ining initiated surf stuff slimes as a jubilant jouissance joy juices jetting jets of oily oozed shimmering shuddering shining silver sliver slime spume spurting spunk luminously leaking light lightening inducing illuminating an anointed Aten atta awe Aleatory Aletheia altaric alteric Alien Being being born before becoming late left language leaked lost out of our onus ontological ointment ooze offering oracle oils.
Alex Alien 1981
For Thoth-Bacon: Forgetting Boring Waiting Falling Throwing Gambling Opening Wondering Shuddering Pondering Thrusting Sensationing Wandering Fatiguing Spurting Wanking Drinking Suturing Projecting Ordering Eternal Returning Leaking Levels ooze open up under the thirsty atta alien attack adrenalin at an abject abyss activating volatile voluptuous vile violent 'Valves of Sensation' sown served through thrown terrorist terrain as an arbitrary abject action of oozed oils pressed pushed projected painting pertaining pulsation shimmering shining sensations. For Bacon-Thoth 'knows' always already that he 'does not know how to do it': how to bring 'it' about, how to bring 'it' off, how to make 'it' come off. One can only do it - a non-illustrational photo-portrait - by not knowing how to do it. To try to ooze operations, ordered charred chance, through thrown organised organic chaos chess. The paradox being that photorealist-portraiture always looks so unreal and so unatural whereas accidental-portraiture as arbitrary and artificial always uncannily appears much real for in real reality we all appear artificial and arbitrary as we never ever look like passport photographs of ourselves: our aborted appearances are always already distorted and deranged and decapitated disappearances and thus Thoth-Bacon displays and plays out our own raw real reality which much more real than realism that never ever has anything at all real about.
Immortal-Imhotep Self-Portrait A.V.E. March 2009
Bacon-Thoth has Time on His hands and throws Time through His Hands for Bacon-Thoth knows when the Time has Come to come to Time to Throw to Come on Time to Come through Time to Come over Time where the coming of Time is the coming off of Time where and when wet Time comes all over You but Bacon-Thoth does not tell you the Time Bacon Thoth shows you the Time as a wed-wet semening-sensationing coming off of Time covering you in Time drenching Dasein.
Bacon-Thoth sow sedated states hence he has to thrown 'the Will to lose his Will': Bacon will Will to do Anything at all arbitrary to thrust thrown by breaking being bare to too bleed the willed articulation of the image initiating slime surging Spilling: Spunking, Forging, Forgetting, Waiting, Chancing, Throwing, Leaking leftovers initiate instinctive impact on the nailed nervous springboard system soil. Radical Forgetting of Fixed Form opens up the Froth Flush of Fluid Form froth foam oozing outside Inane Illustration and a Castrated Conscience. Bacon bravely stated that the moment 'one knows what one is doing' one is merely making another form of inane illustration like fraud Freud. Becoming Baconian altaric Alien art Arrives ahead abroad as afterwards at afar as a forged frothed Forgetting. Forgetting Being Becoming Alien. Bacon-Thoth has The Time on His Hand Knowing what Time to Throw Knowing the Timing of Throwing to the Thereing of the Being Becoming all Alien Forgetting the Human.
Francis Bacon at the Marlborough Gallery London 1976 John Minihan
Forgetting forth for frothing Thoth-Bacon becomes being- blind Becoming as an Alien atta attack Act as an adrenalin object opened oozed outside commonsense conscious conditioning - as Marc Cousins adds: "...precisely the capacity to act which depends upon a radical form of forgetting...an act of passion requires that you in some sense forget the object of passion...Really what it opens up is what you might call a kind of non-intellectualist conception of action...by an action which completely opposes the normal kind of Western way of looking at an action which often might be said to be the way in which the move from a conception to an execution the translation is made." (Mark Cousins, Radical Forgetting, Architectural Association). For Bacon-Thoth to throw-forth is to offer-ahead of His Head His Hands to Bring Being back into the Image Initiated for to Throw Forth is to Gather Up the Image Ahead of Being There throwing-blind decapitating-dasein.
Ra-Horakhty or Ra-Horus of the Two Horizons Musée du Louvre
Bacon knows always already he has no 'conception' of what (Bacon really) 'wants to do' and Bacon does not know 'how to do it': Bacon knows now always already that there simply still cannot be a 'conceptual art' as 'conception is conscious' and (authentic alien) 'art is subconscious.' 'Conception' is always already added after authentic alien awe aura aroma Art arrived: crass contemporary 'Conceptual Art' is a boring-banal apathetic-apology for alien Art as a forgetting-negating of our auratic authentic ancient angoisse aroma alluring alien art awe object orbit offal: crass 'Conception' as a conscious construct always already only operates at the ludicrous level of inane illustration and nauseating narrative with mundane meanings: 'Conception' (is) 'Conscious' ('human') Art - 'Subconscious' (is) 'Subterranean' ('alien') Art. And art-alien as being abceptual cannot be conceived and cannot be conceptualised as Art is alien to the Concept just as Being is alien to the Concept as Art is always already Being as presenting Being as being Art as the Origin of Art is Being and the Origin of Being is Art and Being and Art are alien to the Concept as Being and Art are before and after the Concept which came after the Forgetting of Art and the Forgetting of Being as Art being Being and Being being Art and therefore there are no Concepts of Art or Being as Art is Art as Being is being thus that Being is Art Art is being. Being and Art are the arch-enemies of the Concept. The Concept knows nothing of The Nothing There of the Thereing of Art and the Thereing of Being being The Nothing All. Concepts represent Nothing at all - Art does not represent Anything at all - Art presents Being All - as The Nothing-Alling. Concept is Nothing. Art is Being. Being cannot be represented just as Art cannot be represented. Art is Being presented. Art brings Being to presence.
Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2006
A 'conceptual art' is indeed an absurd oxymoron operating as a puerile product of our media manipulating epoch end initiated in the tedious android age of onto-technology. So so-called 'conceptual art' is always already without concepts and art: it does not exist. Yet the thrown thrusted nailed 'New Image' as an alien creation cannot bare be 'Known' (now) only 'Thrown' now outside of 'contemporary time' (the 'no time' of the 'no present') all the time beyond the banality of our crass 'contemporary art' which is always already available on time in time outside real time all the time outside Beingtime and Beingsensation because being 'contemporary' it is always already deaded-done in the no-time at all and all 'contemporary art' is always already dead-on-arrival dead-on-departure and all done with - without waiting awhile - for the time to come to for an art coming for time for the being time to come and not for the time-being today that is forever forgotten in the time to come. As art-alien is always to come and contemporary-art as art-human has come too early therefore has come too late to come to Time to come so there can never ever be a 'contemporary art' for art is never now never in the now never in the know for there is never any art in the now in the know as an art alien waits awhile for you all to die as an art-art wishes you all dead before an art-alien can come to ahead as away ahead of the dead that were always already dead anyway.
Sphinx II 1953 Francis Bacon
Bored Bacon is always already
dazed hazed lazed smazed mesmerized hypnotised tranquillized anesthetized thrust
through thirsty Throwness Drunkess Fallingness Boringness Forgettingness
activating an alien angoisse art of our oozing eggo-essentialism aiming
as an alighting Alienness Altarity. Brave Bacon thus throws Heidegger's
Falling forward into in an Alienness wetness where an atta alienation is the
'truth' of 'authentic alien being': that is: being bled bare beyond one's ontic
eggoself orbiting observing alien-ation around 'it' re-working re-throwing
re-falling re-thrusting there where what hour Heidegger throws there Dasein
"When Dasein, tranquillized, and 'understanding' everything, thus compares itself with everything, it drifts along towards an alienation in which its own most potentiality-for-Being is hidden from it. Falling Being-in-the-world is not only tempting and tranquilizing; it is at the same time alienating."
By beginning Bacon Throws forth froth foam from the thrown abyss an anxiety thrill thrown up by his angoisse Alieness of not knowing how-to-do 'it'. Bacon's abattoir Alieness anxiety afterwards initiates ignition to Throw froth forward back bleak upon unleashed beam bled Bacon projecting possibility for finding an authentic alien being born as anxiety discloses Dasein: Hear Heidegger here:
"Anxiety throws Dasein back upon that which it is anxious about – its authentic potentiality for being in the world. Anxiety individualises Dasein for its ownmost Being-in-the-world, which as something that understands, projects itself essentially upon possibilities. Therefore, with that which it is anxious about, anxiety discloses Dasein as being-possible.”
Birgir Óli Snorrason as Sopdu A.V.E 22.02.2010
Being-with-Dying releases Being There for the Living and the Dying there-together as all anxiety slowly slips away attuning a serene sein still thit there where we dasein dislodges the two from being-there-in-the-world toward being-out-of-there-out-the-world as away from the world where serene sein becomes being for its own being-time abroad with time as away and ahead of the time-being of being-there-in-the-world where dasein Dying away becomes Being ahead of itself for the being-time of our being-coming to be being-time after the time of dying for dying is not a possibility for being only a possibility for the body of being that gives being back to the time-being-becoming-being-time. Death is only at all possible for Dasein but not at all Possible for Sein for Being is always already waiting-whiling as a be-coming-be-heading ahead and abroad aborted from the body that be-holds the being of the being-there to begin-with for when the body dies dasein Dies being becomes being-out of there being thit being-out-of it out-there without the thereing-there of being-there by being aborted ahead out-as-thit as out-of-time-there for the there is the where there is no time there and the where of the there where there is no time-there is where being is there without time-there.
Gold Statue of Amun Dynasty 22, ca. 945-715 B.C.
Out of anxiety and boredom of being-not-there Thoth-Bacon throws forth an aborted abyss of oozed out authentic alienbeingtime: anxiety, accident, boredom, dread and chance cannot be controlled or anticipated or ordered so the instinctive image is initiated in spite of Bacon not-being-there. Answering Archibaud Bacon bled: "When you're using oil paint, it can result in an effect that you cannot control...That's also when something unexpected suddenly appears; it comes with no warning...What's most surprising is that this something which has appeared. almost in spite of oneself, is sometimes better that what you were in the process of doing..."
By being bored Bacon breaks the 'willed articulation of the image' by 'doing anything' to get out of conscious conditioning and inane illustration. By drifting in the fog of a haze of sein-sensations Bacon loses himself in the nothing. Bacon said to Sylvester: "And yet, what so-called chance gives you is quite different from what willed application of paint gives you. It has an inevitability very often which the willed putting-on of the paint doesn't give you...You see, you don't know how the hopelessness in one's working will make one just take paint and just do almost anything to get out of the formula of making a kind of illustrational image - I mean, I just wipe it all over with a rag or use a brush or rub it with something or anything or throw turpentine and paint and everything else onto the thing to try to break the willed articulation of the image, so that the image will grow, as it were, spontaneously and within its own structure and not my structure...And out of all that, possibly, a more organic image arises than if it was a willed image."
Antemortem Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E 2008
Heidegger hazed: "Profound boredom, drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling fog, removes all things and human beings and oneself along with them into a remarkable in difference. This boredom manifests beings as a whole...In anxiety, we say, 'one feels uncanny.' What is 'it' that makes 'one' feel uncanny? We cannot say what it is before which one feels uncanny. As a whole it is so for the one. All things and we ourselves sink into indifference...The receding of beings as a whole, closing in on us in anxiety, oppresses us. We can get no hold on things. In the slipping away of beings only this 'no hold on things' comes over us and remains. Anxiety makes manifest the nothing..." (Martin Heidegger, Pathmarks, Cambridge University Press, 1998). For Bacon boredom and anxiety - as momentary radical forgetting of being there - open up the possibility of some 'thing' taking one over and throwing one elseeother elsewhere. For Bacon anxiety causes throwness which in turn thrownness causes anxiety. Anxiety has no object but throws open a negative space which throws up a positive object or eggject. Anxiety and Boredom and the Nothing breed ab-images in Bacon. Bacon ab-paints in a fog of forgetfulness with the will to lose his will in a haze of heated smazed spunked sensations and said to Sylvester: "When I was trying in despair the other day to paint that head of a specific person, I used a very big brush and a great deal of paint and I put it on very, very freely, and I simply didn't know in the end what I was doing, and suddenly this thing clicked, and became exactly like this image I was trying to record. But not out of any conscious will, nor was it anything to do with illustrational painting. What has never yet been analyzed is why this particular way of painting is more poignant than illustration. I suppose because it has a life completely of its own. It lives on its own, like the image one's trying to trap; it lives on its own, and therefore transfers the essence of the image more poignantly." (Francis Bacon, Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester Thames & Hudson, 1987). Bacon's bled image 'it' lives out on 'its' own as anxiety and accident and alieness dripping does do. Bacon breaks anxiety and alieness out of pushed paint nailing newness. An alienist anxiety accentuates and activates nailing nerves to the sensationed spectator's shattered shuddered supine spine sending shock shivers. To Throw is to send shockwaves of oozed shot sensation to the severed servile spine sending it instead stiff as a hard-on about to shoot sein aimed ahead of being-there by being-not-there attained and attuned as all anew being all shiny and new for shot sein comes out as always new for when wet semen-sein falls fast across the face the shot shape of semen-sein is initiated as always a fresh frisson forever new and settles as a sparking-sein.
Portrait of M.V.E as Seth Alex Alien October 2007
Beheaded Bacon's bored alienist angoisse anxiety attacks navigate nail new imagery initiating forth fresh foam froth subconscious spunk spurts splattered about and ahead all over our you your both becoming attuned anew as an alien anxiety beheading being there through becoming-being not near anymore by being-beheaded-ahead as near new nearing newer being-beheaded fresh-faced and all-anew:
"The inability to tell you, the inability to announce, the topic of the urge which is the new: if I could say the 'new is' and go on and explain it and describe it then I would be doing very well. I can't say it because as I stand here wanting to think about the new it becomes as always a struggle, a kind of fight as to whether in the first instance whether I will fall back stupidly in just repeating in what has been said about the new which won't be new or will say something else which will not be recognisable as about the new at all. You can see then that the first point we have to deal with is that the new is a point of discrimination between what we already know and therefore can't be new and that which we don't know and therefore can't nominate as the new. The space between the two I propose to call the space of anxiety. That is to say whom so ever comes a problem of the new, whom so ever wishes to do something new is immediately confronted not with the problem of the new - as if we could draw up some amiably obvious way an inventory of all that had been done and then make one additional proposal - 'this has never been done before' - and escape into the new. If I could tell you I would let you know. The question here is: why can't I - at either a historical or psychical level - even let you know what the new is because, as it were, we can't know what it is. What we can know is there where we approach the zone of anxiety...Anxiety is that where, as it were, the subject strives towards an object that is not there. Not there and yet I claim at the last moment it will be there...There in which finally the heroism of Samuel Beckett was found in the condensation of his work which says: 'I can't go on - I'm going on.' I can't go on - I'm going on. Why, why wouldn't one end the state of anxiety just by saying: 'that's it - it's too much and is not enough?'...In response to this condition of anxiety in which the subject wages, hopes, there will be something there where the trajectory of the desire is aimed - there where I would die if only I could see an object appear - if only I could see a new object appear - and the waiting in that period is what? The waiting of anxiety...Very soon the subject will grasp at any fleeting shadow, any vague outline of an object...You know by looking at an empty page - you know by the mistake that you make by drawing too early - you know by leaving it too late: one is always in one's anxiety too early or too late. How does one account like for the timing: the timing of the subject there that the object might arise?... Either there's a gap in reality or there's a gap in thought. There where you see the question of gap you will find, as I suggest, the question of anxiety - there, in a productive way, where people are able to use anxiety, you see the question of the new."
(Mark Cousins, Anxiety and the New, public lecture; The Architectural Association, London, 31 October, 1997)
Mentu Menace Self-Portrait A.V.E Feb 2009
Egyptian Art is the ancient-new for the new in art is the ability to shine ahead of time by being the time ahead of the no-now that Contemporary Art tries boringly to be but cannot be for the now is never new for only the old can be new which is why ancient Egyptian art is always already ahead of Contemporary Art that is always alreday dated and out of time out of being for the now has no time for being no being for time which is why there can be no Contemporary Art today for there is no time today for being to be the time today only Egyptian Art by being Being has the Time still to Shine to be There today for Egyptian Art is the Ancient New for Egyptian Art is the Eternal New for Egyptian Art is the Forever New and by being essentially eternal Egyptianists Bacon was never Contemporary Giacometti was never Contemporary Brancusi was never Contemporary Modigliani was never Contemporary Jawlensky was never Contemporary by-being-forever the-not-now.
Tsunami-Sensation Self-Portrait 2004 A. V. E.
As an abject angst alien again bored Bacon is not a painter of our 'humanist angst' but Bacon is a painter of an alteric 'alienist awe'. Yet alien being - what is alien being? As 'It' 'is' not 'itself'. Alien is the farthest from being (human). As being-thrown-anxiety bored Bacon's alienist alien death dictum is (being a born again alien): "I throw therefore I am (not)." The alien being is raw rather 'thrown' by (not) being 'itself' out-to the truth of alien being so that egg-sisting in this eggs-it cracks open out and leaks light the truth of its bled being spilling all over the place and seeping through and through throw and throw. An alien Angst arises wet when Da-sein throws the activated annihilation off of its inky ex-existence as an egg-sistence as an egg-sist. Bacon's alienist anticipatory reptilian resoluteness of throwing thoth froth forth forward is alien being ahead-of-itself as being-out-of-itself. Alienist Anticipation throws to the 'not yet thrown' while 'thrownness' refers readily to the 'already projected' pus. An angst Alienist Throwing as being-toward-death dungness is in an attunement throwness to being-out-the-world. Do not now also forget that thrown fear throws initiated image oozed outside itself in and also beautifully breeds an alien anxiety attack for Bacon who is always afraid that the image may never arrive yet never at all afraid to throw thoth froth forward freezing fear frisson free forever.
Severed-Seth Self-Portrait A.V.E 2008
"Through fright we leave ourselves and, thrown outside, we experience in the guise of the frightening what is entirely outside us and other than us: the outside itself." (Maurice Blanchot, L' entretien infini, Paris 1969).
An Authentic aroma awesome alluring Apophansis Alien Art as an alteric Aletheia altaric abjected abyss arrived on off thrown through the ab-scene abyss before being the thrown crude crap conscious 'conception' of our (inauthentic) 'Conceptual Art' was wettly 'conceived' and Authentic Alien Art remained remembered long leaked after android 'conception' had long stopped conceiving and deceiving for there never was a 'conceptual art' because authentic alien art always already ends where 'conception' begins and begins where 'conception' ends: an authentic alien atta art fights against the politics and ideology of commonsense 'conception': a radical authentic atta alien art has no 'concepts' and has no need for human 'concepts'. The end of the 'concept' calls in the end of 'man'. Thus 'conceptual art' is (and was always already) dead because 'man' has-was always already ended and deaded before begunded began. Alien atta Apophansis art arrived always already before begun born con 'conceptual' android art. Authentic aroma alien art is the thrown rawed radical forgetting of the 'human' and 'human conception' and the hideous humanism of 'conceptual art' which had no real 'conception' of 'art' at all. Heidegger latched onto an ancient alien image of 'truth' revealed in the Greek word 'aletheia'. Aletheia aura awe alluring alteric instinct images an altaric alien atta abimages - as an "un-coverdness" or "un-concealment" - or as "un-aliening" - as you all should well know by now or not you all will no doubt be in the know and in the throw still not knowing the throwing for to know is not to throw to throw is to know not to know how to throw: only the no-one knows how to throw for the no-one knows nothing of the know only the know of the throw which is the know of the nothing not the no of the nothing - the nothing is not known - the nothing is thrown - ahead away and afar from the known which is never known only thrown - thrown ahead away and afar from the known - but only what is the thrown can be the known.
Finite-Fear Self-Portrait A.V.E. 6.8.2012
Being & Fucking
Two Figures Fucking on a Bed 1953 Francis Bacon
“Fuck that Thing!”
Alien 3, 1992.
“ God's in, I'm out.”
Meister Eckhart (c.1260-1328)
“Woman does not exist.”
Jacques Lacan, Seminar 197-1971.
“All is flux, nothing stays still.”
Heraclitus, Fragment (535 - 475 BC).
“Sex is God's joke on human beings.”
Bette Davis (1908–1989).
“An alien, more, more alien substance cleaves.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, 1908-1832.
“I am the great god who comes to be of himself.”
Amun-Ra, Chapter 17, Book of the Dead, 2025-1700 BC.
“The desert of the Godhead where no one is at home.”
Meister Eckhart (c.1260-1328)
“By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
“Man is most dishonest in relation to his god: he is not permitted to sin!”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
“It is there, in the priority of the other man over me that... God comes to mind.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, Interview with Roger-Pol Droit, Le Monde, 2 June 1992.
“People are being duplicated. And once it's happened to you, you're part of this thing.”
Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Philip Kaufman, 1978.
“Will itself cannot be willed...Willing is a kind of desiring and striving. The Greeks call it orexis.”
Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche: Volume 1 & 2, Harper San Francisco, 1991.
“Willing: a compelling feeling, quite pleasant! It is the epiphenomenon of all discharge of energy.”
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).
“I spread your naked thighs - and your slit is offered - I foresee the coming - of a lonesome - anxiety.”
Georges Bataille, Divine Filth, Creation Books, 2004.
“Is it not precisely longing that proves the human being to be Other, other than a mere human being?”
Martin Heidegger, Schelling's Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom, Ohio University Press, 1985.
“When I had come into being, being came into being, and all beings came into being, after I came into being."
Amun; Papyrus, Early Ptolemaic Period - after Lesko 1991.
“Only a being endowed with organs can conceive a technical finality, a relation between the end and the tool."
Emmanuel Lévinas, The Dwelling; Totality and Infinity, Duquesne University 1969.
“We describe as 'traumatic' any excitations from outside which are powerful enough to break through the protective shield.”
Sigmund Freud, 1920 (1856-1839).
“The devil has the widest perspective for God; that's why he keeps himself so far away from Him, for the devil is the oldest friend of knowledge.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
“I would have liked Hegel and Heidegger to speak about their sex lives. It is something they never spoke about, they always kept their personal lives out of their texts.”
Jacques Derrida, Derrida; Kirby Dick, Amy Ziering Kofman, 2002.
“According to Heidegger, each age has one issue to think through, and one only. Sexual difference is probably the issue in our time which could be our 'salvation' if we thought it through.”
Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Cornell University Press, 1993.
“The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? - Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11; 1266 - 1273.
“Death in Heidegger is an event of freedom, whereas for me the subject seems to reach the limit of the possible in suffering. It finds itself enchained, overwhelmed, and in some way passive.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, Time and the Other, (1946/7).
“I want to bring about a different relationship, in which you say, 'Dear God, I would like to have a conversation with You.' Instead of submission, you get a relationship of dialogue. Let's just assume it's possible.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Danger woman, The Gaurdian, Tuesday May 17, 2005.
“Coming here makes the one who comes belong to dispersal, to the fissure where the exterior is the intrusion that stifles, but is also nakedness, the chill of the enclosure that leaves one utterly exposed. Here the only space is vigorous separation. Here fascination reigns.”
Maurice Blanchot, The Fascination of Time's Absence; The Essential Solitude; The Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press, 1982.
“Peaks of silver shine silently above, And the sparkling snow is full of roses. Still higher above the light lives the god, pure And holy, pleased with the divine play of light beams. He lives there quietly and alone: his face is bright... Down into the deep his influence extends: it Reveals and illumines, just as he pleases.”
Friedrich Hölderlin, The Homecoming; to my Kinsfolk, 1801.
“The bodily [element] in the human is not something animalistic. The manner of understanding that accompanies it is something that metaphysics up till now has not touched on... Can one isolate the dark understanding, which the bodily belonging to the earth determines, from being placed in the clearing?”
Martin Heidegger, Heraclitus Seminar, 1966-1967.
“We should be surprised that a matter that generally plays such an important part in the life of man has hitherto been almost entirely disregarded by philosophers, and lies before us as raw and untreated material.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).
“That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die.”
Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace, New York, G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1952.
“The I is, to be sure, happiness, presence at home with itself. But, as sufficiency in its non-sufficiency, it remains in the non-I; it is enjoyment of ‘something else,' never of itself. Autochthonous, that is, rooted in what it is not, it is nevertheless, within this enrootedness independent and separated.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality & Infinity -An Essay on Exteriority; Duquesne University Press, 1969.
“What presents itself to the individual consciousness as sexual impulse in general, and without being directed towards a specific individual of the opposite sex, is, in itself and over and above the phenomenon, simply the will to life.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Metaphysics of Sexual Love; The World as Will and Idea, Everyman 1995.
"Unegoistic! - This one is hollow and wants to be full, that one is overfull and wants to be emptied - both go in search of an individual who will serve their purpose. And this process, understood in its highest sense, is in both cases called by the same word: love."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak; 145, 1881.
“The I is, to be sure, happiness, presence at home with itself. But, as sufficiency in its non-sufficiency, it remains in the non-I; it is enjoyment of ‘something else,' never of itself. Autochthonous, that is, rooted in what it is not, it is nevertheless, within this enrootedness independent and separated.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality & Infinity, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969.
“Being as venture is the relation of flinging loose, and thus retains in the flinging even what has been ventured...Venture includes flinging into danger. To dare is to risk the game... If that which has been flung were to remain out of danger, it would not have been ventured. It would not be in danger if it were shielded.”
Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper & Row, 1971.
“During the time that motion is being perceived, a grasping-as-now takes place moment by moment; and in this grasping, the actually present phase of the motion itself becomes constituted. But this now apprehension is, as it were, the head attached to the comet's tail of retentions relating to the earlier now-points of the motion.”
Edmund Husserl, On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time, (1893 - 1917); 1991.
Can one not hear in this “Where were you?” a statement of
“Sex is what it is, isn't it? Sex is what it is: it's the moment of ecstasy - if you like the person or if you don't even like them - but it's really the moment of coming isn't it? - of coming off... I put two men naked on a bed. If they grapple with one another, why shouldn't they? I didn't show one putting a cock up the other's arse - I didn't think of anything like that! Comprendo?"
Francis Bacon to Daniel Farson, Finnish TV: 14 July, 1989.
"A Fucking is not a Repeating for our Fucking is Why every Act is not a Repetition for fucking cannot be repeated since the Sensation is never the Same since the Time is never the Same and so the Act is Never the Same so No Act is ever the Same so there can Never be the Repetition of any Act for every time I Fuck I achieve a Fullness of a unique Being-Infinite as a unique Infinite-Jouissance."
Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2011.
“Narrow bands dividing us, fall away! Sacrifice alone is the heart's true way! I expand myself to you, as you to me. May what isolates us go up in fire, cease to be. For life is only as reciprocated, By love in love is it alone created. To the kindred soul abandoned, The heart opens up in strength gladdened. Once the spirit atop free mountains have flown, It holds back nothing of its own. Living to see myself in you, and you to see yourself in me, In the enjoyment of celestial bliss shall we be.”
G.W.F Hegel, Stanzas to Marie von Tucher, April 13, 1811.; The Letters, Indiana University Press, 1984.
“The clearing belonging to the essence of Being suddenly clears itself and lights up. This sudden self-lighting is the lightning flash. It brings itself into its own brightness, which in itself both brings along and brings in...The truth of Being flashes, the essence of Being lights itself up... Only when man in the disclosing coming-to-pass of the insight by which he himself is beheld, renounces human self-will and projects himself that insight, away from himself, does he correspond in his essence to the claim of that insight. In this corresponding man is gathered into his own that he, within the safeguard element of the world may, as the mortal, look out towards the divine.”
Martin Heidegger, The Question concerning Technology, 1954.
"What is the sexual life of Hegel or Heidegger? Because it’s not something they talk about, it’s what they don’t talk about. I want to hear what they don’t talk about. Why did these philosophers present themselves as asexual? Why did they erase their private lives from their work? Or why didn’t they ever refer to their private lives? When I say sex life, I mean private life. There’s nothing more important in private life than love or relationships. I’m not talking about making a porno film about Hegel or Heidegger. I want them to speak about the part that love plays in their lives. We know some things about Hegel or Heidegger but not through them. And I’d like to hear them to speak about this."
Jacques Derrida, Derrida, Kirby Dick, 2002.
“Flight is the engendering of a space without refuge. Let us flee. This should mean: let us seek a place of refuge. But rather it says: let us flee into what must be fled, let us take refuge in the flight that takes away all refuge. Or again: there where I flee, 'I' do not flee, only flight flees, an undefined movement that steals, steals away and leaves nothing into which one might steal away.”
Maurice Blanchot, Plural Speech; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
“Can one not hear in this 'Where were you?' a statement of deficiency (constat de carence) that cannot have meaning unless the humanity of man is fraternally bound up with creation, that is, responsible for that which has been neither his I (son moi) nor his work? Might this solidarity and this responsibility for any and all - which cannot be without pain - be spirit itself?”
Emmanuel Lévinas, Of God Who Comes to Mind, 1982; Meridian, Stanford California, 1998.
“Why is infinite regress bad? There must be an uncaused cause, but in virtue of what is one then permitted to go on and claim that this uncaused cause is God (who is, moreover, infinitely good)? Where is the argument for the move from an uncaused cause to God as the uncaused cause? What necessitates the substantialization of an uncaused cause into a being that one can then predicate with various other metaphysical or divine attributes?”
Simon Critchley, Very Little...Almost Nothing - Death, Philosophy, Literature, Routledge, 1997.
“God is the one and only object of philosophy. [Its concern is] to occupy itself with God, to apprehend everything in him, to lead everything back to him, as well as to derive everything particular from God and to justify everything only insofar as it stems from God, is sustained through its relationship with him, lives by his radiance and has [within itself] the mind of God. Thus philosophy is theology, and [one's] occupation with philosophy - or rather in philosophy - is of itself the service of God.”
G.W.F Hegel, Introduction to The Lectures of 1824; Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, University of California Press, 1984.
“I imagine seeing exhaustion, the horror of being in the depths of things - of being God. Hegel, at the moment when the system closed, believed himself for two years to be going mad; perhaps he was afraid of accepting evil - which the system justifies and renders necessary; or perhaps linking the certainty of having attained absolute knowledge with the completion of history - he saw himself, in a profound sense, becoming dead; perhaps even his various bouts of sadness took shape in the more profound horror of being God.”
Georges Bataille, Complete Works, Paris: Edition Gallimard, 1970-86.
“The 'what question', 'What is a being?' becomes in fact the guiding-question of the entire subsequent metaphysics, but the response to this question is attempted by way of explanation from out of causes or out of conditions for the representability of beings that are pre-determined as objects... In the inceptual question: 'What is a being?' being is interrogated and is already thought as 'ground'. that is, as the swaying ground of beings.”
Martin Heidegger, Mindfulness, Continuum, 2006.
“We are 'in the Trace of God.' A proposition which risks incompatability with every allusion to the 'very presence of God'. A proposition readily converted into atheism: and if God was an effect of the trace? If the idea of divine presence (life, existence, parousia, etc.), if the name of God was but the movement of erasure of the trace of presence?... The face of God disappears forever in showing itself...The face of God which commands while hiding itself... Is not God the other name of Being (name because nonconcept), the thinking of which would open difference and the ontological horizon, instead of being indicated in them only? Opening of the horizon, and not in the horizon...The very content of the thought of God is that of a being about which no question could be asked (except by being asked by it), and which cannot be determined as an existent.”
Jacques Derrida, Violence & Metaphysics; Writing & Difference, Routledge, 1978.
“My body discovers in that other body a miraculous prolongation of my own intentions, a familiar way of dealing with the world. Henceforth, as the parts of my body together comprise a system, so my body and the other person's are one whole, two sides of one and the same phenomenon, and the anonymous existence of which my body is the ever-renewed trace henceforth inhabits both bodies simultaneously... It is as if the other person's intention inhabited my body and mine his.”
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Phenomenology of Perception, 1945.
“Man can do nothing and he, and he is excepted from the truth each time he exercises power (or has the illusion of doing so). But God can do no more than man... God is not able to do anything for us; as long, at least, as we are still ourselves, encompassed by ourselves. 'In this world God is a dissolvent. Friendship with him confirms no power.' [Simone Weil]. We come back to the question: if what tore herself from herself is not herself and is not God, then what is it? One must answer: this tearing itself.”
Maurice Blanchot, Affirmation (desire, affliction); The Limit-Experience; University of Minnesota, 1993.
“Behind each image, God has disappeared...The problem of the existence or non-existence of God was resolved by simulation. But one might think that it was God's own idea to disappear, and precisely behind images. God used the images to disappear, obeying the fundamental impulse to leave no trace. thus the prophecy is carried out: we live in a world of simulation, a world where the highest function of the sign is to make reality disappear and to mask this disappearance at the same time.”
Jean Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art, The MIT Press, 2005.
“Thinking and poeticizing must in in a certain way go back to where they have always already been and at the same time have still never built. However, we can only prepare such a dwelling in that place through building. Such a building may scarcely have in mind the erection of the house for the God or the dwelling places for the mortals. It must be content to build the Way that leads back into the place of the Verwindung of metaphysics and which in this way lets us wander through the destinal character of an overcoming of metaphysics.”
Martin Heidegger, Wegmarken, 2nd edition, Klostermann, Frankfurt and Main, 1978.
“As the Philosopher says in the same book (De Gener. Anim. i, 18), 'the semen is a surplus that is needed.' For it is said to be superfluous, because it is the residue from the action of the nutritive power, yet it is needed for the work of the generative power. But the other superfluities of the human body are such as not to be needed, so that it matters not how they are emitted, provided one observe the decencies of social life. It is different with the emission of semen, which should be accomplished in a manner befitting the end for which it is needed.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Whether the lust that is about venereal acts can be a sin? - Summa Theologiae II-II, 153, 3; 1266 - 1273.
“In 1953 in one of his greatest paintings, Two Figures, Bacon presented a darkened room in which two men make love on a bed: the artist, himself, and his lover Peter Lacy. The vertical lines that run down the picture veil the figures and suggest a view glimpsed through a net curtain, thereby placing us outside the room, spying on the men. In this way the painting embodies the clandestine nature of the depicted action at a time when homosexuality was still illegal in Britain. In Two Figures anxiety about the state monitoring and constraining the individual collided with a time of acute insecurity for homosexuals. A manifesto painting, Two Figures remained unexhibited until Bacon’s Tate Gallery retrospective in 1962.”
James Hyman, Francis Bacon - A Life in Paint, James Hyman Fine Art, 2002.
“In the midst of beings as a whole an open place occurs. There is a clearing. Thought of in reference to beings, this clearing is more in being than are beings. This open center is therefore not surrounded by beings; rather, the clearing centre itself encircles all that is, as does the nothing, which we scarcely know. Being can be as beings only if they stand within and stand out within what is cleared in this clearing. Only this clearing grants and guarantees to us humans a passage to those beings that we ourselves are not, and access to the being that we ourselves are...The clearing in which beings stand out is in itself at the same time concealment... This concealment is dissembling.”
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.
"Reproduction of sexual or gendered animals and human beings can be divided into two phases, each having these same aspects - overfullness, excessive laceration, and loss. Two individuals communicate in the first phase through the channel of their lacerations. A more violent communication doesn't exist. In each person, the hidden laceration (like the imperfection or shame of existence) is laid bare (expresses itself) avidly adhering to the laceration of the other person. When lovers meet, it's a delirious situation of mutual laceration... In an individual slipping towards the horrors of debauchery, love attains its intimate meaning at the brink of nausea. But the opposite movement (an instant of reersal) can be more violent... There's a scream from someone wounded!"
Georges Bataille, Guilty, 1944.
“What Lacan lacked - despite this lack being legible for us after having read what, in his texts, far from lacking, founded the very possibility of a modern regime of the true - is the radical suspension of truth from the supplementation of a being-in-situation by an event which is a separator of the void. The 'there is' of the subject is the coming-to-being of the event, via the ideal occurrence of a truth, in its finite modalities. By consequence, what must always be grasped is that there is no subject, that there are no longer some subjects... And in this journey we will be able to say - if, at least, we do not lose the memory of it being the event alone which authorizes being, which is called being, to found the finite place of a subject which decides - 'Nothingness gone, the castle of purity remains.'...”
Alain Badiou, Being and Event, Continuum, 2005.
“Flesh and meat are life! If I paint red meat as I paint bodies it is just because I find it very beautiful. I don’t think anyone has ever really understood that. Ham, pigs, tongues, sides of beef seen in the butcher’s window, all that death, I find it very beautiful. And it’s all for sale—how unbelievably surrealistic!...I imagine men hanging in butcher’s shops for hyenas, who would be dressed in fur coats. The men would be hung by their feet, or cut up for stew or kebabs. We are all meat. All the inhabitants of this planet are made of meat. And most of them are carnivores. And when you fuck, it’s a piece of meat penetrating another piece of meat. There is no difference between our meat and the meat of an ox or an elephant.”
Francis Bacon, The Last Interview 1991-92; with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.
“The eternal extension of God serves, first of all, the objective of enabling each person who loses himself to find himself in him. But what is then missing is the satisfaction of those who aspire only to be lost, without remission. When Theresa of Avila screamed that she was dying of not dying, her passion, moving beyond any possible barrier, broke an opening that leads into a universe where perhaps there is no composition either of form or of being, where it seems that death rolls from world to world. For the organized composition of beings is apparently deprived of the slightest meaning when it is a matter of the totality of all things; this totality cannot be the analogue of composite beings, animated by the same movement that we know.”
Georges Bataille, The College of Sociology; Visions of Excess - Selected Writings 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
“Then, in the moral ages of humanity, people sacrificed to their gods the strongest instincts which man possessed, his 'nature.' This celebratory joy sparkles in the cruel glance of the ascetic, the enthusiastic 'anti-natural man.' Finally, what was still left to sacrifice? Didn't people finally have to sacrifice everything comforting, holy, healing, all hope, all belief in a hidden harmony, in future blessedness and justice? Didn't people have to sacrifice God himself and, out of cruelty against themselves, worship stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, nothingness? To sacrifice God for nothingness—this paradoxical mystery of the last act of cruelty is saved for the generation which is coming along right now. We all know something about this.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
“For the Greeks 'Being' says constancy in a twofold sense: 1. standing-in-itself as arising and standing forth (phusis), 2) but, as such, 'constantly,' that is, enduringly, abiding (ousia)... The meaning of the words ptosis and enklisis presupposes the notion of an upright stand... Going back an forth, slipping and sliding along this line, has become so much a part of our own flesh and blood that we neither recognize it it nor even understand and pay attention to the question about it. Our immersion [not to say lostness] in the prior view and insight that sustains and guides all our understanding of Being is all the more powerful, and at the same time all the more concealed, because the Greeks themselves no longer shed light on this prior line of sight as such. For essential reasons (not due to failure), they could not shed light on it.”
Martin Heidegger, The Grammar and Etymology of 'Being'; Introduction to Metaphysics, Fried & Polt Ed., Yale 2000.
“We hunt the quarry but refuse to corner it, relish the excitement but loathe the climax...The climax thus mingles life and death, the highest consummating moment being also a commitment to extinction. We enjoy the object of our desire, but in satisfying this particular appetite, we reduce it to nothing... In my brief divinity I am deluded. I fall from fullness. The gnawing sense of my nothingness returns, with the redoubled hunger of ever dissatisfied desire: lack again, only endless now...We are always orientated to something more...Thus, desire is infinite, yet bound to the finite at the same time... The human being thereby becomes defined as infinitely impotent, reaching beyond itself as infinite lack, only to be thrown back upon its own want and weakness... The dissolving disability of desire breeds its opposite positive: absolute, assimilating power, the absorbing god.”
William Desmond, Desire, Dialectic and Otherness, Yale University Press, 1987.
“The expression of Egyptian religious thought can be quite different from that of western thought, and so it is worth mentioning here that even in western thinking about a transcendent first principle, androgyny appears as an image of self-generation and self-regeneration in Orphic cosmogonies and in non-Christian philosophies of the early Christian era, and in the myth of the Phoenix. In all these cases, however, it is the deity who is androgynous, while the ancient Egyptian Atum was not sexually dimorphic. But in the thought of Philo Judaeus, the Alexandrian Jewish Neoplatonist, while God contains the ideas (Platonic ideas, of course) of male and female, God is not Himself androgynous. Here, with the drawing of a distinction between maleness and femaleness on the one hand, and the deity himself on the other hand, we have something roughly analogous to the ancient Egyptian religious belief that had the sexually monadic god Atum become the sexual dyad Shu and Tefnut by putting himself through a process that can be imaged bisexually, though he himself remains male. One text goes so far as emphatically to deny the creator's bisexuality: 'He fucked his fist because there was no vagina.' This god is pure act, as stated earlier, he is pure orgasmic act.”
David Lorton, Autofellatio and Ontology - Ancient Egyptian Religion and the Problem of Closure; Virginia Commonwealth University, 20.9. 1996
“Crypt - one would have said, of the transcendental or the repressed, of the unthought or the excluded - that organizes the ground to which it does not belong. What speculative dialectics means (to say) is that the crypt can still be incorporated into the system. The transcendental or the repressed, the unthought or the excluded must be assimilated by the corpus, interiorized as moments, idealized in the very negativity of their labour. The stop, the arrest, forms only a stasis in the introjection of the spirit...The erection of the pyramid guards life - the dead - in order to give rise to the for-(it)self of adoration...The difference and the play of the pure light, the panic and the pyromantic dissemination, the all-burning offers itself as a holocaust to the for-(it)self... In order to sacrifice itself, it burns itself. The burning then burns itself and goes out; the fire appears itself; the sun begins to go down, to run through the route that will lead it into the occidental interiority...What is at stake here? What is the stake at palay in this column?...Will hehave pleased [plu], rained [plu], more? Will he have ejaculated in the galaxy?... The white stone becomes black... Milk of mourning [Lait de deuil] sealed up (congealed, pressed, squeezed, hidden [caché], coagulated, curdled)... Between the two (already) is elaborated in sum the origin... But it runs to its ruin.”
Jacques Derrida, Glas, (1974); University of Nebraska Press, 1986.
“What is striking is the way in which Freud is animated by a kind of passion for the origin - which he also first experiences in reverse form as a repulsion with regard to the origin. He thus invites each of us to look back behind ourselves in order to find there the source of every alteration: a primary 'event' that is individual and proper to each history, a scene constituting something important and overwhelming, but also such that the one who experiences it can neither master nor determine it, and with which he has essential relations to insufficiency. On the other hand, it is a matter of going back again to a beginning. This beginning will be a fact; a fact that is singular, lived as unique, and, in this sense, ineffable and untranslatable. But this fact at the same time is not one: it is rather the center of a fixed and unstable set of oppositional and indentificatory relations. It is not a beginning inasmuch as each scene is always ready to open onto a prior scene, and each conflict is not only itself but the beginning again of an older conflict it revives and at whose level it tends to resituate itself. Every time, this experience has been one of a fundamental insufficiency; each of us experiences the self as being insufficient...To be born is, after having everything, suddenly to lack everything, and first of all being, inasmuch as the infant exists neither as an organized, self-contained body or as a world... This absence, which is the absence of nothing, is at first the infant's sole presence.”
Maurice Blanchot, The Speech of Analysis; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
“Rushing fountains flow by fragrant flower beds, Bells ring softly in the twilight air, and a watchman Calls out the hour, mindful of the time. Now a breeze rises and touches the crest of the grove — Look how the moon, like the shadow of our earth, Also rises stealthily! Phantastical night comes, Full of stars, unconcerned probably about us — Astonishing night shines, a stranger among humans, Sadly over the mountain tops, in splendour. The kindness of exalted Night is wonderful, and no one Knows where she comes from, or what will emerge from her. Thus she moves the world, and the hopeful minds of humans: Not even a sage knows what she's up to. The highest god, who loves you very much, wants it so; Therefore you prefer reasonable day to the night. But occasionally a clear eye loves the shadows as well, And tries to sleep just for pleasure, before it's necessary, Or a brave person likes to gaze directly into the Night... As lovers are, and a fuller cup, and bolder life, and Holy remembrance as well, to stay wakeful at night.”
Friedrich Hölderlin, Bread and Wine - To Heinze, 1800.
“That man each day walks out into the night is a banality for present-day man... Compline still contains the mystical and metaphysical primeval power of night, which we have to pierce continually in order truly exist. Because Good is only the Good of the Evil: The Compline: a symbol of the existence being held out into the night and of the inner necessity of daily readiness for it... We believe that we are producing the essential, forgetting that it grows only if we live totally - and this means: in the face of the night and of the Evil - in accordance with our heart. The decisive thing is this primally powerful negative - to place nothing in the path of the profundity of Dasein. This is what, concretely, we have to learn and to teach... We should live totally in the face of the night and of the Evil.”
Martin Heidegger, Letter to Elisabeth Blochmann, September 12, 1929.
“Time gives all and takes all away; everything changes but nothing perishes. One only is immutable, eternal and ever endures, one and the same with itself. With this philosophy my spirit grows, my mind expands. Whereof, however obscure the night may be, I await the daybreak, and they who dwell in day look for night ... Rejoice therefore, and keep whole, if you can, and return love for love. ”
Giordano Bruno, The Chandler, 1582.
“What do you say that Degas has trouble getting a hard-on? Degas lives like a little lawyer, and he doesn't like women, knowing that if he liked them and fucked them a lot, he would become cerebrally ill and hopeless at painting. Degas' painting is virile and impersonal precisely because he has resigned himself to being personally no more than a little lawyer, with a horror of riotous living.”
Vincent van Gogh letter to Emile Bernard, 5th August, 1888.
“In Holzwege, apropos of Anaximander, Heidegger deploys all the dimensions of the word Fug, fügen, of the tension between Fug and Unfug, ontological accord and discord, what about indulging in speculation about how the f … word itself is rooted in this cosmic Fug, along the lines of the pagan notion of the universe as resulting from the primordial copulation of the masculine and feminine cosmic principles (yin and yan, and so on)—so, to put it in Heideggerian terms, the essence of fucking has nothing to do with the ontic act of fuck itself; rather it concerns the harmonious-struggling Fucking which provides the very composition of the universe.”
Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View, MIT Press, 2006.
“We do not 'have' a body; rather, we 'are' bodily. Feeling, as feeling oneself to be, belongs to the essence of such Being... Every feeling is an embodiment attuned in this or that way, a mood that embodies in this or that way. Rapture is a feeling, and it is all the more genuinely a feeling the more essentially a unity of embodying attunement prevails... At the outset Nietzsche emphasizes two things about rapture: first, the feeling of enhancement of force, second, the feeling of plenitude... Enhancement is to be understood in terms of mood: to be caught up in elation - and to be borne along by our buoyancy as such... Mood is precisely the basic way in which we are outside ourselves.”
Martin Heidegger, Rapture as Aesthetic State; The Will to Power as Art; Nietzsche Vol. 1 & 2; Harper Collins, 1991.
“Sensation is intentional because I find that in the sensible a certain rhythm of existence is put forward - abduction or adduction - and that, following up this hint, and stealing into the form of existence which is thus suggested to me, I am brought into relation with an external being, whether it be in order to open myself to it or to shut myself off from it... As for the subject of sensation, he need not be a pure nothingness with no terrestrial weight... Between my sensation and myself there stands always the thickness of some primal acquisition which prevents my experience from being clear of itself... Sensation can be anonymous only because it is incomplete.”
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, 1945.
“It is a pneumatic machine that attacks you. You are dealing with a footed void. Neither claw thrusts nor tooth bites, but an unspeakable scarification. A bite is formidable, but less so than such suction. The claw is nothing compared to the sucker. The claw, that’s the beast that enters your flesh; the sucker, that’s you yourself who enters into the beast. Your muscles swell, your fibers twist, your skin bursts beneath this unworldly force, your blood spurts and frightfully mixes with the mollusk’s lymph. The beast is superimposed upon you by its thousand vile mouths; the hydra is incorporated in the man; the man is amalgamated with the hydra. The two make one. This dream is upon you. The tiger can only devour you; the octopus, what horror, breathes you in! It draws you toward itself and into itself, and, bound, stuck, powerless, you slowly feel yourself emptied out within that horrendous sack, that monster. Beyond the terror of being eaten alive is the ineffability of being drunk alive.”
Victor Hugo, Les travailleurs de la mer, 1866.
“The object of sensual desire is by nature another desire. The desire of the senses is the desire, if not to destroy oneself, at least to be consumed and to lose oneself without reservation. Now, the object of my desire does not truly respond to it except on one condition: that I awaken in it a desire equal to mine. Love in it essence is so clearly the coincidence of two desires that there is nothing more meaningful in love, even in the purest love... The two desires fully respond to one another only when perceived in the transparence of an intimate comprehension... Without doubt, the intellect remains behind and, looking at things from the outside, distinguishes two solitary desires that are basically ignorant of one another. We only know our own sensations, not those of the other. Let us say that the distinction of the intellect is so clearly contrary to the operation that it would paralyze the latter's movement if it were compelled to fade from awareness. But the intellect is not wrong merely because the illusion denounced is efficacious, because it works and no purpose would be served by depriving the deluded partners of their contentment. It is wrong in that this is not an illusion.”
Georges Bataille, The Object of Desire and the Totality of the Real, Zone Books, 1993.
“Falling Being-in-the-world is not only tempting and tranquilizing; it is at the same time alienating. Yet this alienation cannot mean that Dasein gets factically torn away from itself. On the contrary, this alienation drives it into a kind of Being which borders on the most exaggerated 'self-dissection', tempting itself with all possiblities of explanation, so that the very 'characterologies' and 'typologies' which it has brought about are themselves already becoming something that cannot be surveyed at a glance.”
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 1927.
“Usually man does not show his body, and, when he does, it is either nervously or with an intention to fascinate. He has the impression that the alien gaze which runs over his body is stealing it from him, or else, on the other hand, that the display of his body will deliver the other person up to him, defenceless, and that in this case the other will be reduced to servitude... Sexuality is neither transcended in human life nor shown up at its centre by unconscious representation. It is at all times present there like an atmosphere...There is no outstripping of sexuality any more than there is any sexuality enclosed within itself. No one is saved and no one is totally lost.”
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The body in its sexual being; The Phenomenology of Perception, 1945.
“Has She left you nothing - but death? But another means nothing to you...And this world takes place neither simply inside you or outside you. It passes from inside to outside, from outside to inside your being. In which should be based the very possibility of dwelling. and you meet me only in the space that you have opened up for yourself. You never meet me except as your creature - within the horizon of your world. Within the circle of your becoming. That protective shell which shelters you from an outside of you which might question the matter with which you built your house. You take me inside you, you cast me outside you, a yes or a no making you full or empty... Do not leave me behind. You reduce me to singularit. And I die when I am imprisoned in a single unique sameness.”
Luce Irigaray, Elemental Passions, The Athlone Press, 1992.
“My perception of the Other's senses serves me as a foundation for an explanation of sensations and in particular of my sensations, but reciprocally my sensations thus conceived constitute the only reality of my perception of the Other's senses... in fact if I start with the Other's body, I apprehend it as an instrument and in so far as I myself make use of it as an instrument...Therefore if I conceive of my body in the image of the Other's body, it is an instrument in the world which I must handle delicately and which is like a key to the handling of other tools... my body always extends across the tool which it utilizes:.. it is at the end of the telescope which shows me the stars... The body is an instrument which I am...”
Jean-Paul Sartre, The Body; Being & Nothingness, University Paperback 1969.
"All that philosophers have handled for millennia have been conceptual mummies; nothing actual has escaped from their hands alive. They kill, they stuff, when they worship, these conceptual idolaters - they become a mortal danger to everything when they worship. Death, change, age, as well as procreation and growth, are for them objections - refutations even. What is does not become; what becomes, is not..."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Reason' in Philosophy; The Twilight of the Idols, 1888.
“My painting is not violent; it’s life that is violent. I have endured physical violence, I have even had my teeth broken. Sexuality, human emotion, everyday life, personal humiliation (you only have to watch television)—violence is part of human nature. You are born, you fuck, you die. What could be more violent than that? You come into this world with a shout. Fucking, particularly between men, is a very violent act, and don’t let’s even mention death.”
Francis Bacon, The Last Interview 1991-92; with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.
“The Universe is one, infinite, immobile. The absolute potential is one, the act is one, the form or soul is one, the material or body is one, the thing is one, the being in one, one is the maximum and the best...The one infinite is perfect, in simplicity, of itself, absolutely, nor can aught be greater or better, This is the one Whole, God, universal Nature, occupying all space, of whom naught but infinity can give the perfect image or semblance.”
Giordano Bruno, 1548-1600.
“What if sexual difference is not simply a biological fact, but the Real of an antagonism that defines humanity, so that once sexual difference is abolished, a human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machine...The end of sexuality in the much celebrated posthuman self-cloning entity expected to emerge soon, far from opening up the way to pure spirituality, will simultaneously signal the end of what is traditionally designated as the uniquely human spiritual transcendence. All the celebrating of the new enhanced possibilities of sexual life that Virtual Reality offers cannot conceal the fact that, once cloning supplements sexual difference, the game is over.”
Slavoj Zizek, No Sex, Please, We're Post-Human!, Britannica.com, 2000.
“We can try to enjoy life - and hope to go on exciting ourselves in different ways. What else is there?... With Nietzsche I believe that man must remake himself. We must woo the doctors and scientists in the attempt to renew and alter ourselves, but there will be a lapse of time before their religious hangover will allow them to act freely... The division between the sexes has to a large extent been invented. Only a comparatively small number of people are active within this division. The rest are waiting for something to happen or be done to them. But society has attempted to make moral differences. We must have the freedom to drift and find ourselves again.”
Francis Bacon, Interview with Michael Peppiatt, Cambridge Opinion, 1963.
“The sensations of the sexual act themselves have a provocative agreement with figures. The sensation exhibits the true object of desire (but the object of desire is itself an exhibit of the sensation). The tepidness of rain in the [brambles? rosebushes?], the dull fulguration of the storm, evoke both the figure and the inner sensation of eroticism. The smoothness, the tumescence, the milky flow of feminine nudity anticipate a sensation of liquid outpour, which itself opens onto death like a window onto a courtyard. But it is human to search, from lure to lure, for a life that is at last autonomous and authentic.”
Georges Bataille, The Conscious Sexual Act; The Accursed Share, Zone Books, 1993.
“True union, or love proper, exists only between living beings who are alike in power and thus in one another's eyes living beings from every point of view; in no respect is either dead for the other. This genuine love excludes all oppositions... When the unity was immature, there still stood over against it the world and the possibility of a cleavage between itself and the world; ... finally, love completely destroys objectivity and thereby... deprives man's opposite of all foreign character, and discovers life itself without any further defect.”
G.W.F Hegel, Early Theological Writings, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
“To love is to exist as if the lover and the loved one were alone in the world. The intersubjective relation of love is not the beginning of society, but its negation. And that is certainly an indication of its essence. Love is the I satisfied by the thou, grasping in the other the justification of its being....The affective warmth of love is the fulfillment of the consciousness of that satisfaction, that contentment, that fullness found outside the self, eccentric to it. The society of love is a society of two, a society of solitudes, resisting universality... In fact, such a society consists of two people, I and thou. Third parties are excluded.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, The I and the Totality; On Thinking-of-the-Other, The Athlone Press, 1998.
"I wanted to make an image which coagulated this sensation of two people in some form of sexual act on the bed, but then I was left completely in the void and left absolutely to the haphazard marks which I make all the time. And then I worked on what’s called the given form . And, if you look at the forms, they’re extremely, in a sense, unrepresentational... I'm always trying through chance or accident to find a way by which appearance can be there but remade out of other shapes... The problem is how you're going to make the figuration. How are you going to make this thing look real, how are you going to make it real to the way you feel about the thing or real to the instinct?"
Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact - Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.
"Artists, if they are any good, are (physically as well) strong. full of surplus energy, powerful animals, sensual... the sober, the weary, the exhausted, the dried-up (e.g., scholars) can receive absolutely nothing from art, because they do not possess the primary artistic force, the pressure of abundance; whoever cannot give, also receives nothing. 'Perfection' : in these states (in the case of sexual love especially) there is naively revealed what the deepest instinct recognizes as higher, more desirable, more valuable in general, the upward movement of its type; also toward what status it really aspires. Perfection: that is the extraordinary expansion of its feeling of power, riches, necessary overflowing of all limits. Art reminds us of states of animal vigour; it is on the one hand an excess and overflow of blooming physicality into the world of images and desires; on the other, an excitation of the animal functions through the images and desires of intensified life; - an enhancement of the feeling of life, a stimulant of it."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power as Art, Spring-Fall 1887.
"Standing there, the construction rests on rocky ground. This resting of the work draws up out of the rock the obscurity of the rock's monstrous yet spontaneous support. Standing there, the construction holds its ground against the storm ragging above it and so makes the storm itself manifest in its violence. The lustre and gleam of stone, through itself apparently glowing by grace of the sun, yet first bring to light the light of the day, the breadth of the sky, the darkness of the night. The temple's firm towering makes visible the invisible space of air. The steadfastness of the work contrasts with the surge of the surf...The Greeks early called this emerging and rising in and in all things physis. It clears and illuminates, also that on which and in which man bases his dwelling. We call this ground the earth...In the things that arise, earth is present as the sheltering agent. The temple-work, standing there, opens up a world and at the same time sets the world back again on earth, which itself only thus emerges as native ground... But as a world opens itself the earth comes to rise up. It stands forth as that which bears all, as that which is sheltered in its own law and always wrapped up in itself."
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1937-1937.
"Derrida and deconstruction have had recourse to much the same strategy, noting the 'phallo-centrism' of 'logocentrism' (= 'phallogocentrism'; see, e.g., D 48-49 & n.47; Gl 113a, 188a; PSF 477ff) and the (intellectual) 'masturbation' of trying to erect a philosophical system (OG 141-164). Deconstructive reading therefore involves castration - 'always at stake' (D 302) - that cuts into the columns of text that are the erection of philosophy to note the gaps, the fissures, the openings (as in a woman) - i.e., the radical alterity ('woman') - on which philosophy depends, and which it therefore does not control. Deconstruction takes note of the feminine phantom haunting the smoke (and mirrors) of philosophy (C 33) and thereby seeks to think as a woman, 'woman being one name for the untruth of truth' (SNS 51; cf. Gl 126a, 126bi, 187a; PSF 442ff). To think as a woman would not be to erect a philosophy but to be fertile in another way - by playing, affirming an endless substitution that is neither signified nor signifier, presentation nor representation, showing nor hiding (P 86-87)."
Robert S. Gall, Living on (Happily) Ever After: Derrida, Philosophy & The Comic; Philosophy Today 38, 1994.
"Two beings of the opposite sex lose themselves in each other, and together form a new being, different from each of them. The precariousness of this new being is manifest: the two parts always remain distinct; there is nothing more than, in short moments of obscurity, a tendency to lose consciousness. But if it is true that the unity of the individual re-emerges with great clarity, this unity is no less precarious as well... Love expresses a need for sacrifice: each unity must lose itself in some other, which exceeds it. But the happy movements of the flesh have a double orientation. Because going through flesh - going through the point where the unity of a person is torn apart - is necessary if, in losing oneself, one wants to rediscover oneself in the unity of love, it does not follow that the moment of tearing apart is itself devoid of meaning for torn-apart existence. It is difficult to know, in a coupling of beings, how much is passion for another being, how much is erotic frenzy, up to what point the being looks for life and power, and up to what point it is led to tear itself apart and lose itself, at the same time tearing apart and losing another."
Georges Bataille, The College of Sociology; Visions of Excess - Selected Writings 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.
"In the Dionysian intoxication there is sexuality and voluptuousness: they are not lacking in the Apollinian. There must also be a different tempo in the two conditions - The extreme calm in certain sensations of intoxication (more strictly: the retardation of the feelings of time and space) likes to be reflected in a vision of the calmest gestures and types of soul. The classical style is essentially a representation of this calm, simplification, abbreviation, concentration - the highest feeling of power is concentrated in the classical type...The condition of pleasure called intoxication is precisely an exalted feeling of power - The sensations of space and time are altered: tremendous distances are surveyed and, as it were, for the first time apprehended; the extension of vision over greater masses and expanses; the refinement of the organs for the apprehension of much that is extremely small and fleeting; divination, the power of understanding with only the least assistance, at the slightest suggestion: 'intelligent' sensuality - ; strength as a feeling of dominion in the muscles, as suppleness and pleasure in movement - All these climatic moments of life mutually stimulate one another."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power as Art, March-June 1888.
"Languid serpent, you writhe, shrink, rise, and sink in that dense humour; and to ease your intense pain, you move from one part of the cold to another... I am tossed, consumed, burned, scorched in the eternal fire, and in the ice of my goddess neither love of me nor pity finds any place for my delivery. Ah me, because she does not feel how great is the rigor of my ardent flame!.... Snake, you seek to escape, but you are powerless. You cling to your shelter, but it is dissolved. You call back your own forces, but they are spent. Your hope is turned to the sun, but a dense midst conceals it... You are hardened by the cold, while I am liquefied by the heat."
Giordano Bruno, The Heroic Frenzies, 1584.
with a Hollywood pornography producer, who told me that he deliberately stages
the action so that the male viewer doesn't identify with the guy doing the
fucking. He's just a machine... I think the categorization of heterosexuality
versus homosexuality is totally wrong. There is a radical asymmetry between male
and female homosexuality. Paradoxically, lesbian sex fits the standard
phallocentric logic much more neatly than gay sex. I think that lesbianism is
enacted for an absent phallic presence. Even some radical lesbian thinkers —
like Judith Butler — who otherwise hate me, concede this point. Whereas the
third element in male homosexuality is feminine, so gay sex is the truly
feminist thing to do — and, in turn, standard heterosexual sex is the most
homosexual act. It seems to me that gay penetration realizes and confronts the
phantasmic support of straight sex too directly — that's why it is so unbearable
for many... Why does heterosexual pornography often involve lesbian interplay,
while prohibiting male interplay? The standard answer is that pornography caters
to the male viewer. But half the people who watch hardcore pornography these
days are women...There's a much deeper issue. I believe Lacan's basic point that
sex is exhibitionistic by definition — it's never just you and me. There are
always three in the sexual act. You imagine a gaze — you are always doing it for
Slavoj Zizek, Index Magazine, 2005.
“Bacon's painterliness is a way of getting under the skin of things, of destroying their matter-of-fact surface appearance and revealing the flesh of feeling they are made of... The unlocking of the feeling in form, as Bacon calls it, does violence to the image. For Bacon, this violence is a way of forcefully referencing reality, as well as an emphatic statement of his assumption that reality in general is violent... The flesh of Bacon's figure shows the mad music of uncontrolled or undisciplined sensation rebelling against any conformity to the outer order of things - symbolized by the mask of the face - and becoming a kind of idea in itself... There is no harmonious togetherness in Bacon's world, only conflict and self-conflict, self-torture and torture of the other. Perhaps this is why the couplings never do depict anal intercourse, but only the inconclusiveness of their struggle. The one figure cannot really take the other from behind, nor do they confront one another. Their union is, literally, a stalemate and dead-lock... In general Bacon's handling of flesh can be understood as the climactic act of his attempt to fuse fact and feeling, the conscious and unconscious, the critically controlled and accidentally instinctive, the illustrative and imaginative, the photo-slick technically reproducible and the singular texture of particular sensation. All the dichotomies come together in the flesh, which is simultaneously commonplace, and charged with rare personal feeling.”
Donald Kuspitt, Francis Bacon: The Authority of the Flesh, Art Forum, Summer, 1975.
“One of the people Bacon used to drink with during his frequent visits to Tangier in the late 1950s was Allen Ginsberg, the American Beat poet. One day Ginsberg asked Bacon whether he'd do a portrait of him and his boyfriend having sex. It seems likely that the request was inspired by one or both of two paintings which Bacon had made in 1953 and 1954... In any case he must have made the request in a way which suggested that he was thinking that Bacon would be doing the painting from life, given that Bacon answered: 'Well, this is going to be awkward, Allen; how long can you hold it?' At the same time, it seems fairly certain that that question was put in jest... Bacon's first painting of coupled figures is an especially good example of the fluency with which he could combine images borrowed from other people's art or craft with images from his personal life... The painting is also the key case in the saga of Bacon's dealing with censorship... The first exhibition in which it appeared was Bacon's retrospective at the Tate in 1962. The catalogue entitled it Two Figures and had a note that it was based on a photograph by Muybridge of two wrestlers. The exhibition included a copy of the photograph in the hope of lending respectability to the painting. It seemed to me that, ironically, the photograph of the wrestlers looked more pornographic than the painting of the buggers. It was of course because the painting was raised to a higher level by the beauty and nobility of its fracture.”
David Sylvester, Francis Bacon and The Nude, Dublin, 23rd May, 2001; Francis Bacon - Studying Form, Faggionato Fine Art, 2005.
“The in of the Infinite designates the depth of the affecting by which subjectivity is affected through this 'putting' of the Infinite into it, without prehension or comprehension. It designates the depth of an undergoing that no capacity comprehends, that no foundation any longer supports, where every process of investing fails and where the screws that fix the stern of inwardness burst. This putting in without a corresponding recollecting devastates its site like a devouring fire, catastrophying its site... It is a dazzling, where the eye takes more than it can hold, an igniting of the skin which touches and does not touch what is beyond the graspable, and burns. It is a passivity or a passion in which desire can be recognized, in which the 'more in the less' awakens by its most ardent, noblest and most ancient flame a thought given over to thinking more than it thinks... The negativity of the in of the Infinite - otherwise than being, divine comedy - hollows out a desire which cannot be filled, nourishes itself with its very augmentation, and is exalted as desire, withdraws from its satisfaction in the measure that it approaches the desirable. It is a desire that goes beyond satisfaction, and, unlike a need, does not identify a term or an end. This endless desire for what is beyond being is dis-interestedness, transcendence - desire for Good. But if the Infinite in me means a desire for the Infinite, is one certain of the transcendence which passes there?... Love is possible only through the idea of the Infinite - through the Infinite put in me, through the 'more' which devastates and awakens the 'less', turning away from teleology, destroying the moment and the happiness of the end.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, God and Philosophy (1975); Basic Philosophical Writings, Indiana University Press, 1996.
“Thus with a woman, even if the jouissance of the One is not excluded, it is, nevertheless, impossible. A woman does not make the exception exist, and when she addresses the One of exception from the place of her jouissance, from a not-all jouissance, she encounters the Other of lack. What she encounters, then, is an absence: the Other cannot be found. It is perhaps this that can account for the apparently mad character of love and of feminine jouissance. The relation of a woman to S(A) takes her outside the field of the phallus. Here, a woman touches the edges of a jouissance and of an infinite love which is different from the infinite love of the psychotic in that she attributes no meaning [signification] to it and does not localise this jouissance in the Other. Jouissance is glimpsed here, but it is only a glimpse, as beyond a limit. It is a kind of inkling of the infinitude of love and not, as in hysteria, an attempt to make the sexual relation exist. No longer the love of the idealised father, but a love with a poetical dimension, dilectio, a purified surge of the soul. In any case, it is the only love which, perhaps, escapes the field of narcissism; it can sacrifice the most precious thing. Thus, one could understand otherwise Lacan’s statement mentioned above on the erotomaniacal form of feminine love as love addressed to the Other of lack. It is precisely because she cannot say anything about this ‘mixture of love and of jouissance that a woman supposes it comes first from the Other. She only reaches the Other jouissance on the supposition of the jouissance of the Other. She can only suppose that what she cannot speak about, the Other will be able to do it for her. It is like loving God with the love by which God loves you, to hijack a formula of Master Eckhart: ‘The eye by which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me’. Whilst a man believes the meanings [significations] that a woman proffers, a woman makes the word of love exist that would make her live in that nameless place where she is staying. Thus, in the loneliness of this love beyond the phallus, she elicits at the locus of the Other the well spoken to say the word of love ‘which is always beginning again’...”
Rose-Paule Vinciguerra, The Paradoxes of Love, Psychoanalytical Notebooks No. 3, 1999.
“When I had come into being in the being of the Being One who came into being on the First Occasion, when I had come into being in the being of the Being One, it meant that my coming into being was the coming into being of beings, for I am more primeval than the Primeval Ones whom I have created. (Because) I have been primeval among the Primeval Ones, my name is more primeval than they. (And when) I had made the primevalness of the Primeval Ones, I did my every wish in this land in which I had become broad. I had clenched my fist, when I was alone, before they were born: I had not spat out Shu, I had not sputtered out Tefnut I had brought my own mouth, my name was Magic: it was I, who had come into being in being, when I had come into being in the being of the Being One. When I had come into being as the Primeval Ones, a multitude of beings came into being at once, before any being came into being in this land. I had made every created thing, when I was alone, before any other came into being who might act with me in that place. I made beings there through that 'soul' (ba) of mine.”
Amun-Re, Book of Knowing the Creations of Re & Overthrowing Apophis; trans: Dr. David Lorton 1979 - circa: 312-311 B.C.
Two figures fucking on a couch 1967 Francis Bacon
In the Beginning was the Fuck, and the Fuck was with God, and the Fuck was God. All Things were fucked by God and All Things came into Being through Fucking, and Apart from the Fuck Nothing came into Being that has come into Being by Fucking. And the Fuck became Flesh, and fucked among Us, and We saw Fucks spunk, Spunk as of the only coming from the Fucker, full of Spunk and Truth. In the Beginning God fucked all Things from His own Spunkessence. All Things were Fucked through God. So God Fucked Man full of Spunk and said: "Let there be Spunk." So God fucked Man in Fucks own God and God fucked Woman in Fucks own God then God felt fucked after seeing All that God had fucked forth and then God fucked off.
God who is One is One who Fucks the Fuck One the God One the One God the God Fuck for there is only One God only One Fuck only One Fuck God only One God Fuck for God is what Fuck means and Fuck is what God means. That is: to fuck forth for God as a Fuck is to Sensation the Divine Nothing as a Spunking Scripture coming off.
God is the Fuck of all Fucks as the Source of all Fucks as the Sauce of all Fucks as a Semening Sein Sensationing of our Pure Presenceing Dissemenating Dasein.
The Question of God and the Question of Being has beheaded and blighted the Question of Fucking but the forgotten Question of Fucking is the Answering to the Question of God and the Answering to the Question of Being for Fucking there is no Question of God for Fucking there is no Question of Being for Fucking Answers all.
There is no Question of Fucking for there is no Question for Fucking for there is only the Sensation of Fucking the Sensation for Fucking as the Sensation of God as the Sensation of Being for there can never be a Question of God or a Question of Being only a Sensation of God only a Sensation of Being Coming through Fucking forth.
Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word 'fuck'? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of fucking for fucking is not really about penetration or procreation at all. For fucking is a forgetting of being there and a forgetting of the thing being fucked for.
Philosophy doesn't give a fuck for fucking for philosophy wants to know nothing of the fucking and doesn't think a fuck for fucking as a fucking-thing thinking-thing a thing for thought for fucking thought. Yet fucking is always already an authentic form of thinking if you think about it if you fuck about it - in its fort-da-thrusting fucking is a form of thinking in and out thrusting and retrieving giving and taking - for fucking is primordial form of thinking if you think about it if you fuck about it: Thinking is the Eternal Return of the Fucking: I fuck therefore I think. There is no Thinking without Fucking. Yet Thinking forgot that Fucking formed Thinking first of all for one and all.
We must never forget that Fuckophising is foremost Philosophising as a thinging thinking thing for the the thing that thinks and fucks for the time being for the being time to come. Philosophising is there for Being whereas Fuckophising is there for Time and yet We still say Philosophising is for Time and Fuckophising is for Being.
For what is Being? Being is Fucking. Being is always already fucking-being as a being-fucking for being-fucks fucks-being: being-fucks-being for being is being as a fucking-being to be-being to begin-being. The Question of Being is the Question of Fucking for being is first and foremost a fucking-thing as a thing that fucks forth.
Heidegger asks: What calls for Fucking? What is Fucking? What is Fucking for? For who is Fucking for? For Fucking is the First Question for Thinking to think first to fuck first: For Fucking forth opens Out our Thinking through the Things there within the World as a wondering wandering wording of our wounding whirling worlding. Our Coming off of Our Fucking happens here with en-owning for Fucking is not extant as emptiness into which, so to spunk, subsequently beings always stream. Rather, fucking 'breaks in upon' that which because of this 'breaking in upon' becomes first 'that' which can be present and absent as a 'being' coming off of being there.
If the Origin of Thinking was Fucking we need to Think about what the Fuck about what we were Fucking about Thinking for for Fucking to form Thinking through as a Fuck for Thought as a Food for Thought. We can ask what came first: Fucking or Thinking: did we Think to Fuck first or Fuck to Think first? Does the coming of the Fucking fuck forth the coming of the Thinking - the coming off of Fucking as the coming off of the Thinking? How does Fucking come about? How does Thinking come about?
Thinking comes about through Fucking first and then Thinking took over from Fucking thought through for Thinking forgot fucking for a time for a being but today the time has come to come to Fucking afresh as a thing to Think about all over again as our other form for Thinking being through as a Fucking being through Thinking for Thinking is determined by Fucking that set Thinking free to fuck forth thought and the first thought was to try and forget Fucking forever as a Thinking thing so Thinking fucked off Fucking and forgot all about Fucking for Thinking Fucking is not needed and we now all assume to Fuck is not to Think and that Fucking does not need Thinking about and yet Fucking frees the future for Thinking to Come about as a Time in itself Becoming being-time out of itself where Fucking frees Thinking to Fuck freely.
What does Thinking fuck about? What does Fucking think about? Depth? How does Thinking fuck? How does Fucking think? Deeply? How deep do we think we fuck fuck we think? A Deep Fuck? A Deep Think? How deep is deep? How deep is depth? Why is Fucking and Thinking attuned as a Profound Penetration? Thinking and Fucking have no profound depth to penetrate deeply and are not deep profound or penetrating but shallow slush floating freely flying forth shining above the surface of the skin.
We come to know what it means to fuck when we ourselves are fucking. Yet what does it mean to fuck and are we really fucking when we fuck or are we really being fucked? We have still not come face to face with what fucking is all about and what fucking fucks and what fucking fucks for. For fucking is not a sex act at all for there are always minus-two people plus the nothing present when fucking comes forth for fucking clears being from beings and becomes there for the nothing that fucking fucks for. For the fucking becomes being for the nothing for fucking is the negation of the totality of beings for fucking is the seeking of the nothing seeping the nothing coming.
Fucking is the Vanishing of Dasein: Fucking is the Vanishing of Being There where No Being is Present but the Nothing Shining: the Shining of the Nothing coming with the Vanishing and the Vanquishing of Being thrown through the Fucking: for Fucking is a Vanishing of Being There for Fucking is a Vanquishing of Being There.
The Meaning of Being is Fucking for Time as the Meaning for Being is Fucking for Time for Being is Finite and Time is Infinite therefore Fucking is Timing for Being to Become Time: the Fucking is the Timing for the Clearing of Being to Become Being for Time Becoming the Time Being through the Fucking which is the Rehearsing for our Deathing to Come which is the Infinity of the Nothing Eternally Coming Never Ever Ending for Fucking like Thinking is always already Forever and Alien to Being There.
For Fucking and Thinking about Becoming Infinity is the Most Dreadful and Difficult Thing to Think about and to Fuck about and Throws forth Anxiety and Dread.
Is not Anxiety over Fucking - Dread of Fucking - just as Primal as Anxiety and Dread over Death? Is not Fear of Fucking just as Originary as the Fear for Fucking?
For what Fucks together Fucks apart as for what Comes together Comes apart for Being together is Being apart for Fucking fucks Fucking apart for the Nothing.
For Fucking fucks for Nothing for Fucking fucks always for the Nothing at all thus Negating the Fucking that fucks Being fucked off and ahead as a Nothing Fucking a fucking nothing at all for Fucking is for No One at all but for the Nothing that is There never Coming after being has come off and away without ever Being there whilst the Nothing remains the nothing coming the nothing withdraws the nothing not coming withdrawing away from the coming of Being that dies before being can come.
Fucking is akin to Painting to Writing to Sculpting to Thinking in that There we throw and fuck ourselves out of ourselves we try to lose ourselves forget ourselves fuck ourselves out of there out of being there by being out of it in order to find ourselves again as being all alien again and thus there hollowing out the human altogether.
We said: being still does not fuck and this is because what must be fucked about turns away from being; by no means only because being does not sufficiently reach out and turn to what is to be fucked. What must be fucked about turns away from being. Fucking withdraws from being thorough fucking ahead of being there fucking there for the nothing there. For fucking is a withdrawing and what withdraws from us draws us along by it very withdrawal yet we are not aware of the withdrawal withdrawing being from fucking being for fucking is also a pointing ahead of being as we are drawing toward what withdraws we ourselves point towards it as fucking being ahead as what withdraws goes forth far ahead as a withdrawal-projection for when one withdraws one opens out the hole as pointed projected ahead of itself.
Yet for the vast majority of the masses fucking is a far more common practice than thinking is today for most can fuck but few can think yet to fuck is as a hard and a difficult thing to do as thinking is. Fucking is a form of forgetting-thinking as a fucking-forgetting-about-thinking-about-thinking and thinking-about-fucking and fucking-about-fucking. Fucking also forges and forces ahead Thinking about the Nothing: Fucking is The Nothing to Think About when Thinking comes about by Nothing. Fucking wants to forget Thinking about It. Yet thinking and fucking are essentially the same thing the same act: that of becoming beheaded from being by being for the other thing by being ahead of oneself thrust ahead into the other and thinking as fucking sends us ahead thrusting us ahead and out of ourselves as an other being for another fuck another think that takes us all in and out again. Being Fucked is being-away as if abroad on an alien territory seeping strange sensations: a floating thing a falling thing a freeing thing: as an airborne thing being thrown ahead and out of oneself aimed at the other that fucks-one-free only to return to the fucker for fucking forever: to be well fucked is to be well out of the world in the world all at once to be and not to be all at the same no time at all for all time for no time at all.
Two Figures Fucking on a Bed 1972 Francis Bacon
For Heraclitus Fucking is a Fluxing-Flowing-Thinging: "Fucking flows and nothing abides. Fucking gives way and nothing stays fixed. Fucking flows; nothing remains. All is flux, nothing is stationary. All is flux, nothing stays still. Whoever cannot fuck - the unforeseen sees nothing, for the known way - is an impulse. Fucking hurts, and what release - may come of it - feels much like death. Sound fucking - is to listen well and choose - one intercourse of action. One's fucking - shapes one's fate. Yet all things follow from the fuck. Silence, fucking. Fucks keep their secrets. After a fuck comes - nothing hoped for - nor imagined." (Heraclitus, The Fragments).
For Thomas Aquinas Fucking is Eterniting as the Eternal Return of Time to Being There for the There Being of Time to Come as a Circling that is a Fucking Forever: Eterniting resembles the Centre of the Circle fucked through for as the Hole comprehends the Whole course of Tme through the intercourse of Time to Being from Being to Time. Eterniting is always Present to whatever Time or Moment of Time or Time and Movement of Time that Fucking Being fucks forth for: Fucking is the Timing of the Eterniting of the Infiniting of the Nothing never Coming for the Centre is Outside the Circumference of Being and Time all the time not in time not in being not in there.
For Meister Eckhart Fucking is Nothing as Image Free free from God Being and Becoming the Godhead ahead of Being God that the Fucking forths us for. For once the Fucking begins God is fucked free and forgotten and Beheaded aheaded by the Godhead that is Headless and Imageless alighted as absolute nothingness of the Nothing There for Fucking is the Desert of the Godhead where no One is at Home and All are Away for Fucking is fucking for the Godhead where no Beings are There at all.
For Meister Eckhart the Godhead is Fucking forth for Eternity from which all Beings fuck forth from as that Infinite Nothing that Comes through the coming off of Being There for the Godhead is not the Becoming of Being but the coming off of Being being for the Nothing to Come for the Godhead is Being Headless for the Nothing.
For Meister Eckhart God is Fucking in Being and not Thinking in Being: God fucks Being from Within and God comes from Without: "Whoever does not truly Fuck God within themselves, but must constantly receive God in One external Hole after another, Fucking God in diverse ways, whether by particular people, such a person does not Fuck God ... We should not content Ourselves with a God of thoughts for, when the thoughts come to an end, so too shall God. Rather, we should have a Fucking God who is beyond the Thoughts of all people and all creaturess." (Meister Eckhart, On Detachment and possessing God, Selected Writings). We come to God through God fucking Being to come to the God Fuck for We cannot Fuck God: "All Beings wish to Fuck God in all their Works. They all Fuck as well as they can, but they cannot Fuck God. Whether they wish to or not, like it or not, even though they all want to Fuck God, God remains unfucked... " (Meister Eckhart, Sermon 5, Selected Writings).
Plato's God is the Idea of the Good Fuck - as Aristotle's God is the Idea that Fucks Itself - as Spinoza's God is the Infinite Fuck - as Hegel's God is the Absolute Fuck.
For GOD Fucking is GOD for GOD fucked GOD to be GOD to Become GOD to Become GOD without Coming without GOD Coming to be GOD to be GOD for Being to Come.
Being Comes for GOD to Come for the Moment of Coming off GOD Comes to Mind for Fucking fucks for GOD to Come that cannot Come for Being that Comes for GOD.
When You Cum You Cry God even when Not Believing in God You still Cry God for God Comes to Mind when You Cum inside Me for when You Cum You feel God Cum.
For God cannot Come for You for GOD cannot Come Inside You at all like HIV cannot Come Inside You for HIV cannot Infect Being for GOD cannot Infect the Nothing.
That GOD fucks out of The Nothing and yet cannot Come Inside Being yet Infects Being fucking Being to Be by being Outside is a thing no one thinks or fucks about.
That HIV is also a nothing in Itself and has never ever been Isolated served severed from the Stuff of Being like Blood or Semen seems also to bother no one at all.
For GOD is not a Name and HIV is not an Acronym for GOD and HIV name nothing and stand for nothing stand in for the nothing and not for the thing of the Nothing.
No one is 'Living with GOD' just as No one is 'Living with HIV' for No one has 'GOD' just as No one has 'HIV' for just No one has 'GOD' or 'HIV' in their Blood or Semen.
Being is a Thing - a Fucking Thing - a Thing that Fucks Being becomes Being through fucking being fucked Being Fuck being becomes being by being fucked into being there by being fucked there through the being that fucks being to be there being there is being fucked there to begin with with being becoming through the throwing that is fucking for fucking is a form of throwing as a fort-da-seining where the fuck throws being ahead of being fucked there then the fucking begins being again being fucked forth. To fuck is to fuck the pure outside of the (im)possible origin of being with (out) the other (at once) for fucking frees the fuck from the fucker and from the thing fucked. For the fucker and the fucked become the fucking thinging fucked beyond being of beings by becoming through the fucking the thinging beheading being.
For Fucking as a Furthering is always absolutely alien to the Mineness of our Dasein - for Fucking - as an Abjecting ahead and a Beheading of Being in the World - is an Abgrounding Airlifting aiming always away from Dutiful Dasein that throws the Thereness of the being-there to Care and to Cope for for the time-being anyway.
For Dasein is 'in-time' whereas Fucking is 'out-time' - out-of-time with the time-being in-time for the being-time to Come. Fucking is the Severing of the da from the sein as a fort-da-sein-ing - for to fort is to fuck - for we cannot fuck da - we cannot fuck there: there is no there to fuck for: we fuck for the fort not for the da of being.
Hear Hedegger: "To fuck being requires in each instance a leap, a leap into the groundless from the habitual ground upon which for us beings always rest...Being, however, is not a fuckable ground but is the groundless... In fact, we surely fall into the abyss, we find no ground, as long as we know and seek a ground only in the form of a being, and hence never carry out the leap into being, the fuck into being or leave the familiar body of the oblivion of being." (Martin Heidegger, Parmenides Lectures 1942-43). For Hedegger Fucking en-fucks being coming to being be-ing and be-ing is being out of being as an ab-grounding projecting-opening where and when fuck-ing is a clear-ing of being becoming be-ing time-ing in infinit-ing the nothing there coming to the coming off of being there thus be-ing depends on fuck-ing for break-ing being open and out of itself for itself being out of itself by being be-ing for fucking forth ahead of out-of-itself therefore fucking is a break-ing-open of an ab-grounding.
Did Hegel ever fuck pussy in doggy? How did Heidegger fuck cunt? Did Nietzsche fuck arse? Did Wittgenstein fuck or get fucked? Did Foucault get fucked or fuck? How do Philosophers fuck? How do Philosophers come? Do Philosophers ever get hard? Or give head - being all head after all? Representations of Philosophers are always penisless and bodiless - debodied by being beheaded from their embodiment of being Philosophers are all head - and always as a huge head sitting on plinth without a penis present - all head and no body. Do Philosophers really have penises after all? Why is the Philosopher's face privileged over his penis? Schopenhauer however did privilege the penis as the force of the will for fucking is will-to-life for Schopenhauer. For Schopenhauer the will-to-life is the will-to-fuck for fucking-is-a-willing.
For Hegel Fucking is Godding: "So if God's being is attested in our Fucking, it is there in the form of complete contingency, as being, in principal, a particular content, one that takes no precedence over any other content, for the status of being a fucking can belong to the other just as easily as to it...Even if we have now said that Fucking is the locus in which God's being can be pointed out immediately, we have not met with being or God - our object - there in the way we want to, i.e., not as being that is free in and for itself... To the extent that God is, I am not; to the extent that God Fucks me, the finite disappears. In this way God is defined by an antithesis that seems to be absolute.... I forget myself plunging into the object. I immerse myself in it as I seek to cognize and to conceive God. I surrender my particularity in it, and if I do this I am no longer in the relationship which, as an empirical consciousness, I wanted to maintain.... If the relationship is altered, if God is no longer a beyond for me, then I no longer remain a pure observer, I become interwoven with the thing instead.... This other, which is called God, is a beyond, nothing else for us but what, in the Fucking of our Finitude, we yearn for, this and nothing more; for we are Fucked in our Finitude absolutely... We must now consider the general nature of Fucking, so far as it is appropriate at this point. 'I feel something hard.' When I say this in this way, there is first the 'I' and second the 'something,' making two. That is the expression of reflection. The common element is the 'hardness.' There is hardness in my fucking, and the object also is hard. This commonality exists in Fucking: the object impinges upon me and I am filled with its determinate character... Thus God is in our Fucking, God has in that respect no advantage over what is worst... God is spunk, not finite spunk but absolute spunk... Spunk is what manifests itself." (Hegel, The Lectures of 1824; Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, University of California Press, 1984).
Two Figures Fucking Triptych August 1972 1972 Francis Bacon
For Jacobi Fucking is Godding-Nothing: "But the Human Being has such a choice, this Single One: Nothingness or a God. Choosing Nothingness, he fucks himself into a God; that is, he fucks an apparition into God because if there is no God, it is impossible that man and everything which surrounds him is not merely an apparition. I repeat: God is, and is outside of me, a fucking being, fucking in itself, or I am God fucking Nothing. There is no Two there. There is the One of the Nothing or the One of the Godding and both are One fucking for the Other one." (Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Open Letter to Fichte; Philosophy of German Idealism, Continuum, New York, 1987).
For Schelling Fucking as a Forcing-forth and Coming-off of Nature's Spirit opens-out Contracting and Consciousing of our Unconscious Spunking as a Coming to Consciousness thrust through the Coming off of our originary Contraction activating Attraction and abjected ahead as a Semening-sensation Dasein-dissemenation ejaculating Ereignis Ent-Scheidung. Coming freeze-frames for a split-second the coming of our 'consciousness' coated wet with the coming off of our 'unconscious' like the skin sealing the spunk about to be split apart severing the coming between the 'unconscious' and the 'conscious' for fucking is the forcing and forging together as apart the coming-clearing of our conscious-unconscious as an unconscious-conscious: fucking-fuses conscious-unconscious-unconscious-conscious forever for one.
For Schelling Fucking is Ungrounding: for fucking is for-no-one forever for-no-time: for Schelling Fucking is Impossible for Schelling Fucking is Impenetrable for Fucking is the the Impenetrable God we want to fuck for whilst Fucking the Father off altogether whilst not even Giving a Fuck for the Mother that Lays There between the Father Fucked and the God to Come. For Schelling Fucking is the Impenetrable Ground fucked for by the Impossible Being for a Time that cannot Come to Being.
For Schopenhauer - as for Bacon - fucking is all there is - is all there really is - between birth and death - and fucking is always already fucking ahead and afar towards death as a way of forgetting death by being death be beheading one's head ahead of oneself: to fuck-off is to fuck off and away from oneself: to fuck is to free oneself from oneself into the death that is the other as the other being being fucked is being fucked free from being itself freed back into the fucker that fucks the fucked free from being fucked to being fucked free: a sort of fort-da doggy style as the Eternal Return of the Fuck that cannot free being from being fucked forever fucking being forever being fucked. But what is fucked for remains forever out of focus out of fuckus for us for fucking is also a freeing from being a freeing from being fucked for.
Schopenhauer sensations Fucking as a Willing: "The fuck, considered purely in itself, is without knowledge and is merely a blind, irresistible impulse and since what the fuck fucks is always life, just because life is nothing but the sensation of that fucking for the body... That the fuck as such is free, follows from its being, in our view, the thing-in-itself, the content of all phenomena...The sexual impulse proves itself the decided and strongest affirmation of life also by the fact that to man in a state of nature, as to the animals, it is the ultimate purpose, the highest goal of life...The genitals are, far more than any other external part of the body, subject merely to the fuck and not at all to knowledge. Indeed, the fuck shows itself here almost as independent of knowledge as in those parts of the body which, responding merely to stimuli, serve vegetative life, reproduction, in which the fuck works blindly as in Nature devoid of understanding... The affirmation of the fuck is the continuous fucking itself, undisturbed by any knowledge; such fucking does, in general, occupy human life. For the human body is the objectivity of the fuck as it appears in this individual. And thus his fucking, which develops in time is, as it were, a paraphrase of the body, an elucidation of the sensation of the whole and its parts; it is another way of exhibiting the same thing-in-itself as is already manifest in the body. So instead of saying 'affirmation of the fuck', we may say 'affirmation of the body'... What presents itself to the individual consciousness as sexual impulse in general, and without being directed towards a specific individual of the opposite sex, is, in itself and over and above the phenomenon, simply the fuck to life." (Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will: Book Four; The World as Will and Idea, Everyman 1995).
For Schopenhauer Spunking comes before and after the Coming to Fucking to the Coming of Fucking which would wish Spunking - as the Thing in Itself Coming to Itself - would not Come at all - for Fucking finds Coming a frightening frisson freezing Fucking forever fucked. For Fucking forgets that Spunking Comes for Anything at all Comes for Nothing at all and always without giving a Fuck about it. Spunking is Coming for Itself and all Over Itself by Coming by Itself and Ahead of Itself and ahead of the Nothing of Fucking that cannot Come to Anything at all since Spunking severs Fucking. Spunking is not a Willing to a Coming from Fucking forth to a Head as Coming Off of a Head: "The denial of the will to fuck does not in any way imply the annihilation of a substance; it means merely the act of non-volition: that which previously willed, wills no more. This will, as a fuck in itself, is known to us only in and through the act of volition, and we are therefore incapable of saying or of conceiving what it is or does further after it has ceased to perform this act: thus this denial of the will to fuck is for us, who are a phenomena of volition, a transition to nothingness...He who is capable of fucking a little more deeply will soon perceive that human desires cannot begin to be sinful simply at that point at which, in their chance encounters with one another, they occasion harm and evil; but that, if this is what they bring about, they must be originally and in their essence sinful and reprehensible, and the entire will to fuck itself reprehensible." (Arthur Schopenhauer, On Affirmation and Denial of the Will to Live; On the Suffering of the World, Penguin Books 2004).
For Nietzsche Fucking is Willing: "Fucking: a compelling feeling, quite pleasant! It is the epiphenomenon of all discharge... In every fucking there is in the first place a multiplicity of feelings, namely, the feeling of the state away from which, the feeling of the state toward which, the feeling of this 'away' and 'toward'; then there is also an accompanying feeling in the musculature that comes into play by force of habit as soon as we 'fuck' even if we do not set 'arms and legs' in motion... There is no such thing as 'fucking' but only as fucking something: one must not remove the aim from the total condition - as epistemologists do. 'Fucking' as they understand it is as little a reality as 'thinking': it is a pure fiction...Thinking, feeling, fucking in all living beings. What is a pleasure but: an excitation of the feeling of power by an obstacle (even more strongly by rhythmic obstacles and resistance) - so it swells up. Thus all pleasure includes pain. If the pleasure is to be very great, the pains must be very protracted and the tension of the bow tremendous... Feelings of pleasure and displeasure are reactions of the fuck in which the intellectual centre fixes the value of certain changes which have occurred in relation to the value of the hole; at the same time the introduction of counteractions... All actions must first be made possible mechanically before they are fucked. Or: the purpose usually comes into mind only after everything has been prepared for its execution. The end is an inner stimulus - no more... My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (-its fuck to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ('union') with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on - What is 'active'? Reaching out for power... 'Procreation' - only derivative; originally: where one fuck was not enough to organize the entire appropriated material, there came into force an opposing fuck which took in hand the separation; a new centre of organization, after a struggle with the original fuck... 'Pleasure' - as a feeling of power... The organic functions translated back to the basic fuck, the fuck to power - and understood as offshoots... This world is the fuck to power - and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this fuck to power - and nothing besides!" (Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil ; The Will to Power - [November 1885, 1887-March 1888], Walter Kaufmann Edition, Vintage Books 1968).
Two Figures Fucking on a Bed 1970 Francis Bacon
For Louis-Ferdinand Céline Fucking is Styling: "Fucking is Styling and neither vulgarity nor sexuality have anything to do with this business - They are nothing but stage props. Fucking is the Styling of our Musical Muscles of our Skin Sounds that our Bodies Blow in and out played pumped and piped when we shout out: cunt you cunt fuck you cunt cunt you fuck you fucking cunt you cunting fuck fucking fuck face face fuck slit slut slut slot slit slot slut fuck fish fish fuck cunt cock cod cod cunt cock cunt cunt cock cod crack cunt crack cod cock spurt splat splurt slurt slut slurp splurt spat spunk splat slurp splurt spurt spat jew jew spat spit jaw juice jew jaw juice juice jaw jew balls ball bag jaw jews juice balls drop jews dick drips drop dick drip dick ball bags bag ball pricks pussy prat prick pump pussy pump prick pussy prat pump tool prat pump tart tool trick tart tool take to tool tart tool to take trick tart tool taker to trick take tool tart tart tool take taker tool tool tart trap tart trip trap trap trip tart trip." (Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Letter to Milton Hindus, May 15, 1947).
For Heidegger Fucking is an Opening Out and Letting Lie of the Lighting: "If we fuck it [i.e., the fucking of being] as lighting, this includes not only brilliance, but also the openness wherein everything, especially the reciprocally related, comes into shining. Lighting is therefore more than illuminating, and also more than laying bare. Lighting is the meditatively gathering bringing-before into the open. It is the bestowal of fucking... The fucking letting-lie-before of what is present in its presencing." (Martin Heidegger, Aletheia; Early Greek Thinking 1943).
Here for Heidegger Fucking is letting-being-be by letting-being-lie-with-being there for Fucking means co-being for Fucking means being-with for Fucking means: co-being-being-with-being-there-being-there-in-the-world-with-the-one-other-and-the-other-one-being-being-for-being-being-for-being-fucking-fucking-being.
For Heidegger Fuck-ing is a Hymn-ing-Hyphen-ing Thing-ing: for Hym to Fuck is a Hymn of the Hyphen to the Hymen to Hymn the Fuck Hym to Hymn the Hym Fuck as a Fuck-ing Forth-ing Glory-ing Gaze-ing into the No-thing of the Night-ing that throws there the Shine-ing open of the Source-ing of the Sauce-ing song Coming as a Comet that there Comes wet-with Com-ing as a gorgeous God-ding ground-ing-there through the Hypen-ing of the Hy-men-ing-Hyphen-ing joining-jubilant-juices.
For Heidegger then the Hym who Fucks is the Hym who Hymns the Fuck of the Future as a Song of the Soul that Comes through the Night as a Shining Lighting: ufuck hymn ufuck hym for ufuck the hymn of hym the uhym of the uhymn of the he-phen he fucks-for part-ing-prat join-ting-apart the-there-that with-which parts-prat coming together join-ing-juices-apart the penis-path that the cunt-comes cut-apart to the prat-source where the wet spunk-ing-sauce comes to a close as a comet coming halting the hymning of hyming hence-he-hates hys-hyphen-hymn coming he-hates-hys comet-coming as a coming-comet comes all apart altogether-torn-together.
For Heidegger Fucking is the Clearing of Being through the Self Spunking of the Lightning: "The fucking belonging to the essence of Being suddenly clears itself and lights up. This sudden self-lighting is the lightning flash. It fucks itself into its own brightness, which in itself both fucks along and fucks in...The truth of Being flashes, the essence of Being lights itself up... Only when man in the disfucksing coming-to-pass of the insight by which he himself is befuckd, renounces human self-will and projects himself that insight, away from himself, does he correspond in his essence to the claim of that insight. In this corresponding man is fucked into his own that he, within the safeguard element of the world may, as the mortal, fuck out towards the divine." (Martin Heidegger, The Question concerning Technology 1954).
For Heidegger Fucking is the Clearing Cleaving as an Opening Outing of Being as a Hole: "In the midst of beings as a Hole an open Cunt occurs. There is a Fucking. Fucked of in reference to beings, this Fucking is more in being than are beings. This Open Cunt is therefore not surrounded by beings; rather, the Fucking Cunt itself encircles all that is, as does the Nothing, which we scarcely know. Being can be as beings only if they Stand within and Stand out within what is Cleared in this Clearing. Only this Fucking grants and guarantees to us Humans a passage to those beings that we Ourselves are not, and access to the being that we Ourselves are...The Fucking in which beings Stand out is in itself at the same time Cuntcealment...This Cuntcealment is dissembling." (Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art 1935).
For Heidegger Fucking is the Cleaving of the Tearing as a Separating of the Joining: "But as a cunt opens itself, the cock comes to rise up. It stands forth as that which bears all, as that which is sheltered in its own law and always self-secluding. Cunt demands its decisiveness and its measure and lets beings extend into the open of their paths. Cock, bearing and jutting strives to keep itself closed and to entrust everything to its law. This strife is not a tear as the gaping cunt of a pure cleft, but the strife is the intimacy with which combatants belong to each other. The tear pulls the opponents together in the origin of their unity by virtue of their common ground. It is a basic design, an outline sketch, that draws the basic features of the rise of the lighting of beings. This tear does not let the opponents burst apart; it brings the opposition of measure and boundary into their common outline." (Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, New York: Harper & Row 1971).
For Heidegger Fucking is a Homing-In of our Home-Coming: For to Fuck is to Home-In: to try to Come Home whilst without Being at Home for Fucking forth as a Homing In homes-in-on-nothing-at-home to come-home to for coming-home is always a going-away as being-comes by going-away from the home of the no return.
For Heidegger Fucking is also a Venturing into the Dangering of Dasein without Shielding Sein: "Being as venture is the relation of fucking loose, and thus retains in the fucking even what has been ventured...Venture includes fucking into danger. To dare is to risk the game... If that which has been fucked were to remain out of danger, it would not have been ventured. It would not be in danger if it were shielded." ((Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper & Row 1971).
For Heidegger Fucking is Forever a Forgetting of Being-in-the-World where we wander away without a wonder what it is all about apart from being about the nothing which is not nothing at all for fucking is not negating-nothing but negating-being by being-for-the-nothing that negates-nothing and negates-being-as-nothing.
For Levinas Fucking is the One Othering-for-the-Othering One where no one but the other ones are there as the There Is of the there is not There for the one filling out the other one fulfilling the nothing there of the other one not there for the one other there not: the other is the other one of the one other: there are not two there.
For Levinas Fucking is Intersubjecting-Interhumaning where we fuck forth Being-for-the-Other-as the Other-for-the One where One and One are never Two for One and One never become the Two because the One knows Nothing of the Two for One and One only ever equal One and No Other for there is no number Two there.
For Levinas Fucking is Infiniting of the There Is for the Nothing of the Othering Coming through the Gifting of the Glorying that Crowns through the coming off of being there. The There Is Comes for Nothing and Calls for Nothing that is Coming after the Fucking that coming off finishes off fucking for through the Coming of the apeiron ather that comes for the Nothing that has Come with the coming off of being fucked there. Fucking is the Gifting of the There Is of there being no being there but the Nothing Coming that comes as a Gifting of the coming off of fucking forth for the there without being being there for the there of the There Is the Nothing that is there.
For Levinas Fucking Forth is Infiniting In of our Othering Godding by Being Other: "The in of the Infinite designates the depth of the afuckting by which subjectivity is affuckted through this 'fucking' of the Infinite into it, without prehension or comprehension. It designates the depth of an undergoing that no capacity comprehends, that no foundation any longer supports, where every process of investing fails and where the screw that fucks the stern of inwardness burst. This fucking in without a corresponding recollecting devastates its site like a devouring fire, catastrophying its site... It is a dazzling, where the cunt takes more than it can hold, an igniting of the skin which touches and does not touch what is beyond the graspable, and burns. It is a passivity or a passion in which desire can be recognized, in which the 'more in the less' awakens by its most ardent, noblest and most ancient flame a thought given over to fucking more than it thinks... The negativity of the in of the Infinite - otherwise than being, divine cock - hollows out a desire which cannot be filled, nourishes itself with its very augmentation, and is exalted as desire, withdraws from its satisfaction in the measure that it approaches the desirable. It is a desire that goes beyond satisfaction, and, unlike a need, does not identify a term or an end. This endless desire for what is beyond being is dis-interestedness, transcendence - desire for God. But if the Infinite in me means a desire for the Infinite, is one certain of the transcendence which passes there?... Love is possible only through the idea of the Infinite - through the Infinite put in me, through the 'more' which devastates and awakens the 'less', turning away from teleology, destroying the moment and the happiness of the end... The I fuck reconstitutes presence and being, interestedness and immanence, in love... In this strange missionary position that orders the approach to the other (autrui), God is drawn out of objectivity, presence, and being." (Emmanuel Lévinas, God and Philosophy (1975); Basic Philosophical Writings, Indiana University Press 1996).
For Levinas Fucking is Imaging Infiniting attuned attained and alighted as an Imagectivity initiated ahead as an Abjectivity severing Subjectivity spunk-spent: For Levinas Fucking-Forever is Freeze-Framing an Abjected-Abimage so severing time-out-of-time-out-of-being-out-of-joint where-when being becomes be-ing abjected ahead of being-there by be-ing-not-there by being an alien-abimage arising and arriving afar as free form from being-in-the-world by being fucked-forth for an abtime ahead. For Levinas we Fuck-Forth for an Alien-Abimage freeze-framed for further-futuring fucking where-when we are-all no longer being-in-time but time-being.
Therefore Fucking for Levinas is the Glorying of the There Is of the Ather not Is There for Glory is the Essence of the Gift to the Coming of the Fucking for Infinity and Glory is the Gift of the Hole that Coming Being fucks for Becoming Infinity for Glory is but the ather arse of the activity of the alien arriving as Glory is the Glorification of the alien ather's coming off out of the Gift Hole of the 'as-for-one' as 'as-for-the-ather-one' where the very possibility of the Origin of the Other is absolutely fucked.
For Levinas Fucking is Inhuman and Monstrous: "The eternal duration of the interval in which the fuck is immobilized differs radically from the eternity of a concept; it is meanwhile, never finished, still enduring - something inhuman and monstrous... An eternally suspended future floats around the animal position of a fuck like a future forever to come. The imminence of the future lasts before an instant stripped of the essential characteristic of the present, its evanescence... A fuck is interesting, without the slightest sense of utility, interesting in the sense of involving - to be among things which should have had only the status of objects... Fucking has a non-dialectical fixity, stops dialectics and time fucking an eternally suspended future. In fucking the instant endures infinitely." (The Levinas Reader, Blackwell 1989).
Being Fucked and Fucked Being for Levinas is Gifting for the One of the Other for the Fucker exists only via the Gift of the Being being Fucked for as a Gift that then the Fucker gives back the Gift of the Fuck for the Fucked for: the Fucker gives back the Gift of the Fucked: the Fucker is Fucked the Fucked is Fucker through the fucking of the gifting. For Levinas it is the Fucked Being that is the Promise of Infinity coming to the Fucker that Becomes Infinity through fucking the Fucked that is in it self fucked out of itself initiated ahead as Infinity: the Fucker and the Fucked are fucking ahead as initiating Infinity where and when Fucking is Infiniting outside Being and Time.
For Merleau-Ponty Fucking is an Othering of the One with other One: "My body fucks in that other body a miraculous prolongation of my own intentions, a familiar way of fucking with the world. Henceforth, as the parts of my body together comprise a system, so my body and the other person's are one hole of one whole, two sides of one and the same fuck thing, and the anonymous existence of which my body is the ever-fucked trace henceforth inhabits both bodies simultaneously...It is as if the other person's intention inhabited my body and mine his where fucking is the one belonging together with the other one... I fuck in the facial expressions of the other, as I feel him fucking in mine. Fucking is our own Othering one." (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Phenomenology of Perception,1945; The Child's Relations to Others 1951).
Two Figures Fucking on a Bed 1972 Francis Bacon
For Blanchot Fucking is Fleeing from Fucking: "Man Fucks. First he fucks something, then he fucks all things through the unmeasured force of fuck that transforms everything into fucking. Then when fucking has taken hold of everything - making of everything what must be fucked as much as what one cannot succeed in fucking - fuck makes the hole, by a repulsion that attracts, slip away in the panic reality of fucking. In panic fucking it is not that everything declares itself to be what should be fucked or what is impossible to fuck: it is the very category of the hole - the one borne by the general question - that is unseated and made to falter. We are here at the juncture where the experience of the hole is shaken, and, gives way to panic profundity. When we fuck we do not fuck each thing one at a time and one after another, according to regular and indefinite enumeration. For each thing, equally suspect, has collapsed in its identity as a thing, and the hole of things has collapsed in the slipping movement that steals them away as a hole. Fucking now makes each thing rise up as though it were all things and the hole of things - not like a secure order in which one might take shelter, nor even like a hostile order against which one must struggle, but as a movement that steals away. Thus fuck not only reveals reality as being this hole (a totality without gap and without issue) that one must fuck: fucking is this very hole that steals away, and to which it draws us even while repelling us. Panic fucking is this movement of stealing away that realizes itself as profundity, that is, as a hole that steals away and from which there is no longer any place to steal away to. And thus it accomplishes itself finally as the impossibility of fucking... Fucking is the engendering of a space without refuge. Let us fuck. This should mean: let us seek a place of refuge. But rather it says: let us fuck into what must be fucked, let us take refuge in the fucking that takes away all refuge. Or again: there where I fuck, 'I' do not fuck, only fucking fucks, an undefined movement that steals, steals away and leaves nothing into which one might steal away." (Maurice Blanchot, Plural Speech; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota Press 1993).
Two figures Lying on a Bed 1968 Francis Bacon
For Blanchot the Fuck is the Work free from Being: "The Fuck is the violent liberty by which it is communicated, and by which the origin - the empty and indecisive depth of the origin is communicated through the fuck to form the brimming resolution, the definiteness of the beginning... But the fuck's very coming to be is revealed by the flash of its disappearance at least as by the false light shed by survival from mere habit. The feeling that fucks escape time originates in the fuck's 'distance' which always comes from the fuck's presence... If the fuck's 'void,' which is its presence to itself in its fucking, is difficult to preserve, this is not only because it is in itself hard to sustain, but also because it remembers, as it were, the void which, in the course of the fuck's genesis, marked the incompletion of the fuck and was the tension of its antagonistic moments. That is why fucking draws whoever fucked the fuck into the remembrance of that profound genesis...The fuck does not endure over the ages; it is... Even if the fuck overwhelms him, and all the more so if it becomes his sole concern, he feels that he does not exhaust it, that it remains altogether outside his most intimate approach. He dos not penetrate it; it is free of him, and this freedom makes for the profundity of his relation to the fuck...The fuck's freedom still keeps him at a distance...Only if it is torn unity, always in struggle, never pacified, is the fuck a fuck. And only when it becomes light shining from the dark, the unfurling of that which remains closed, is it this torn intimacy... The fuck moves thus from gods to men... It contributes to this movement; for always it pronounces the fuck beginning in a way which is more original than are the worlds, the powers which borrow that fuck in order to become manifest or to act. Even its alliance with the gods, to whom the fuck seems so close, is ruinous for the gods...The fuck bespeaks the divine, but only as much as the divine is unfuckable. The fuck is the presence of the god's absence, and in this absence it tends to make itself present: to become... In the fuck man spunks, but the fuck gives voice in man to what does not spunk: to the unnameable, the inhuman...The fuck was once the leakage of the gods, their absence's spunk... Although, in the end, the fuck seems to have become a dialogue between two persons in whom two stabilized demands have been incarnated, this 'dialogue' is primarily the more original combat of more indistinct demands, the torn intimacy if irreconcilable and inseparable moments which we call measure and measurelessness, form and infinitude, resolution and indecision. Beneath their successive oppositions, these moments steadily give reality to the same violence... This violence lasts as long as the fuck is a fuck... Each time the fuck fucks, behind the gods or in men's name name, it is as if to announce a greater beginning. The gods seems to hold the keys to the origin, they appear to be the primordial powers from which all emanates, the fuck." (Maurice Blanchot, Communication and the Work; Concern for the Origin; The Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press 1982).
For Blanchot Fucking is Beginning as being
begins with fucking forth: "Fucking is a matter of going back again to a
beginning. This beginning will be a fuck; a fuck that is singular, lived as
unique, and, in this sense, ineffable and untranslatable. But this fuck at the
same time is not one: it is rather the center of a fixed and unstable set of
oppositional and indentificatory relations. It is not a beginning inasmuch as
each scene is always ready to open onto a prior scene, and each conflict is not
only itself but the beginning again of an older conflict it revives and at whose
level it tends to resituate itself. Every time, this experience has been one of
a fundamental insufficiency; each of us experiences the fuck as being
insufficient...To be born is, after fucking everything, suddenly to lack
everything, and first of all being, inasmuch as the infant exists neither as an
organized, self-contained body or as a world.... This absence, which is the
absence of fucking, is at first the infant's sole presence."
(Maurice Blanchot, The Speech of Analysis - The Limit-Experience; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota Press 1993).
For Simone Weil Fucking is Devastating: "The Man who has known pure fucking - if only for a moment - is the only man for whom affliction is something devastating. At the same time he is the only man who has not deserved the punishment. But, after all, for him it is no punishment; it is God holding his hand and fucking rather hard. For, if he remains constant, what he will discover buried deep under the sound of his own screams is the spunk of the silence of God...That is why we fuck from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes fucking, but the fuck of God. We know that we cannot fuck God face to face without dying, and we do not want to die, we want to fuck, fuck God face to face, fuck God in the face." (Weil, Gravity and Grace, New York 1952).
For Freud Fucking is Fort Daing for Freud Fucking is Child's Play as a rehearsal for the Fucking to Come: children theoretically fuck far better than adults do: adults aren't actually fort-da-fuckers for the adult intellect initially finds fucking an alien and abhorrent thing to think about and act to do so always already acts out at fucking for sensations sake and for the sake of the children to come to fuck for future fucking. For Freud the Eternal Return of the Fuck throws and retrieves the Nothing at all.
For for Freud We Fuck in the Face of Anxiety of the Nothing that Comes with and for the Father and Mother that are Never There to Begin or End with For for Freud when Two Heterosexuals fuck forth Minus Four adults are Present plus the Nothing to Come for fucking forth is a Clearing of Consciousness by Beheading being there.
For Freud Fucking is for Godding and not Fucking for Fathering or Fucking for Mothering for the Adults are absolutely alien to fucking for when we fuck we are always already all alien and not now sexed subjects and therefore then the adults are never present and always absent. For Freud we are always already Fucking God as the Evil of the Two Lessers as the Lesser of the Two Evils that are the Adults that are always Absent and never There when we Come to Fuck God: Ours to Fuck or Die.
For Freud Fucking is Unconsciousing the Godding where we fuck for the Sensation of God the Unconscious through the Semenation of Coming Off over the No Face of God that is There for God the Unconscious has No Face needing no face having nothing to face by Being The Nothing at all as a Dasein Dissemenation Spunking Sein.
For Freud to Fuck is to Die to Fuck is to Drive to Fuck is to Drive towards Death to Dive towards Death to Fuck Death in the Face to Fuck Death in the Face of Death and through the Face of Death for to Fuck is to Die to Fuck to Death to be the Death Fuck that Fucks Death in the Face without giving a fuck for being death without ever being dead. Fucking as a fucking for an after-meat forward for an after-death where there is no father-fucker no mother-fucker only our god-fucker the death-fucker.
For Freud the Fuck is the Eternal Return of the Primary Event Trauma where the Fuck Force Severs Sein where the Prick pierces protective Cunt consciousness Breaching being opening out Our Origin of Being Born. For Being Born is the First Fuck where we were fucked forth out of the warm womb into the worn world.
For Freud Cunt consciousness cannot come to Cock consciousness for the Cunt is Uncunty as an Uncanny Thing foreign though familiar flown forth from another Cuntry away and abroad far from Home free from Homme free from Fucking for the Cunt cannot be Fucked for Cock consciousness cannot Fuck Cunt consciousness.
For Freud the Unconscious is Structured and Sutured as the Sensation of Fucking the Godding where the Nothing happens and has happened and also about to happen here again and again. For Freud God the Unconscious looks like nothing at all and leaks like the Nothing there as a Spent Sensation of our Subconscious Stuff.
For Lacan Fucking is Lacking the Nothing for fucking is for nothing there for there is nothing there to fuck for for Woman is not there so Man fucks the Nothing there fucking the Nothing there that is the Lacking there where Man fucks Man where Man fucks Himself fucking forth for God not there with the Woman who is not there.
For Sartre Fucking is Othering: "Evidence is Being itself insofar as it appears to the For-itself. But at the same time that this evidence delivers Being to me and through it I protect myself absolutely against any future, whatever it may be... In any case, for any future, for any Fucker, what is unveiled to me at this instant, in the process of verification, was...tIndeed, this future freedom is this fucker that I am to become for myself. It is a very specific fucker: what I will call 'the fucker without the reciprocity of alterity'. He is for me completely a fucker, but for him I am the same. Undoubtedly not in the sense that he would penetrate the absolute of my present Erlebnis but in that it will be entirely familiar to him, in that he will have to be it behind himself, in that whatever he does he will have to assume it, that is, to re-interiorize a finitude that I prescribe for him from this moment". (Jean Paul Sartre, Truth and Existence, 1948).
For Derrida Fucking opens out Prick-Pyramiding to the Crypting-Cunt: "Cunt - one would have said, of the transcuntdental or the fuckpressed, of the unfucked or the exfucked - that organizes the opening to which it does not belong. What speculative dialectics means (to spunk) is that the cunt can still be incorporated into the system. The transcuntdental or the fuckpressed, the unfucked or the exfucked must be assimilated by the cock, interiorized as moments, idealized in the very negativity of their fucking. The stop, the arrest, forms only a stasis in the introjection of the spunk...The erection of the prick guards life - the dead - in order to give rise to the for-(it)self of adoration...The difference and the play of the pure spunk, the panic and the prickomantic dissemenation, the all-spunking offers itself as a holocunt to the for-(it)self... In order to sacrifice itself, it spunks itself. The spunking then spunks itself and goes out; the spunk appears itself; the cock begins to go down, to run through the route that will lead it out of the cuntcidental interiority...What is at stake here? What is the stake at play in this prick?...Will he have pleased [plu], rained [plu], more? Will he have ejaculated in the galaxy?... The white spunk becomes black... Spunk of mourning [Spunk de deuil] sealed up (congealed, pressed, squeezed, hidden [caché], coagulated, curdled)... Between the two (already) is elaborated... But it runs to its ruin, for it counted without." (Jacques Derrida, Glas, University of Nebraska Press 1986).
For Derrida Fucking is Inventing the Possible-Impossibility Inviting of the Other-Fucker-Fucking the Fucking-Fucker-Other: "The invention of the same through which the fucker comes down to the same when its event is again reflected in the fable of a psyché. Thus it is that invention would be in conformity with its concept 'invention,' only insofar as, paradoxically, invention invents nothing, when in invention the fucker does not come, and when nothing comes to the fucker or from the fucker. For the fucker is not possible. So it would be necessary to say that the only possible invention would be the invention of the impossible. But an invention of the impossible is impossible, the fucker would say. Indeed... It is not against this possible invention but beyond it we are trying to reinvent invention itself, another invention, or rather an invention of the fucker that would come, through the economy of the same, indeed, by miming or repeating it, to offer a place for the fucker, to let the fucker come. I am careful to say 'let it come,' because if the fucker is precisely what is not invented, the initiative or deconstructive inventiveness can consist only in opening, in uncloseting, in destabilizing foreclusionary structures as to allow for the passage toward the fucker. But one does not make the fucker come, one lets it come by preparing for its coming. The coming of the fucker or its coming back is the only possible arrival, but it is not invented, even if the most genial inventiveness is needed to prepare to welcome it and to prepare to affirm the chance of an encounter: a 'we' that does not find itself anywhere, does not invent itself: it can be invented only by the fucker and from the coming of the fucker that says 'come' and to which a response with another 'come' appears to be the only invention that is desirable and worthy of interest. The fucker is indeed what is not inventable, and it is therefore the only invention in the world, the only invention of the world, our invention, the invention that invents us. For the fucker is always another origin of the world and we are to be invented. And the being of the we, and being itself. Beyond being. By the fucker, beyond the performance and the psyché of 'par le mot par.' Like the future-to-come, for that is its only concern: allowing the adventure or the event of the entirely fucker to come. Of an entirely fucker that can no longer be confused with the God or the Man of ontotheology... And of course you have seen nothing coming. The fucker, that's no longer inventable." (Jacques Derrida, Psyche: Invention of the Other; Psyche: Inventions of the Other, Volume One, Stanford University Press 1998).
For Zizek Fucking is a Cunting Thing coming to consume Being as a Hole for the Nothing Whole: With Fucking forth we Hunt out a Hole through which One can escape Whole: The Cunt Hole or the Arse Hole are the Toilet Hole - dasein's domain - where we flush our filth away like a Black Hole that sucks in our spent spunk as a Cunt Chaos beheading being as a Cunt coming swallowing up sein swallowing up spunk for the Cunt Thing is the Real Thing as the Hole Thing of the Whole Thing of the Nothing: the Cunt Hole is the Totality of Being the Nothing of the Whole Thing where Time collapses through the Cunt Hole that curves Time back to Being the Nothing Whole.
Two Figures Fucking in the Grass 1954 Francis Bacon
For Bacon Fucking-Painting pertains to the Physical Primeval pain(t)ing: "You are born, you fuck, you die. What could be more violent than that? You come into this world with a fuck. Fucking, particularly between men, is a very violent act, and men want to be fucked to death - fucked to death by the father - finished off by the father.. When I paint two men fucking, it's not by chance, it's because I feel some kind of need to do it. A physical need. It's more primitive than crucifixions. Painting is very physical as it is - like fucking - and with painting like fucking there is that desired but dreaded moment of coming off - of coming to an end. For me the act of throwing the paint is a form of fucking and coming to a head - coming to a climax. Painting and fucking are very violent acts really - even if rather pleasurable. Painting scenes of men in action gives me a great pleasure. It's one of the aspects of human behaviour that most interests me. It's instinct, and it's my instinct to paint it. Men's bodies sexually arouse me so I paint men's bodies very often, it makes up almost all of my work. Hence I've also done very crude canvases, very pornographic, but I destroyed them. I found it too easy. For a painter, moments of sexual fantasy can lead to paintings that are often very banal, and when the arousal fads, you realise that it hasn't done anything. For a painter there's only fucking and painting - all the rest is pretty much meaningless really. It's only when that I'm painting or being well fucked I feel that I'm truly alive - and I suppose it's because painting and fucking are so physically violent and emotionally exhausting that they give rise to those uplifting sensations of elation, ecstasy and euphoria. I lived to paint. I painted to be fucked." (Francis Bacon, The Last Interview, Francis Giacobetti, 1991; Art Newspaper June 2003).
For Peppiatt Bacon's primordial paintings are almost a sexual act akin to the violent sensations of fucking-being and being-fucked and actually fuck through to the organs of the viewer-voyeur by-passing the brain. Bacon's violent fuck-paint fucks the psyche of the body without the brain being there: "The sexual aspect of his life was probably the most important. It was the moment when he was most himself, most instinctive, most primal, most raw, most undisguised, and most a part of his instinctive being. I think that, you know, these paintings are almost a sexual act... I think when you get to that point with an artist, you forget notions of art and you think merely in terms of feeling and sensation... It's not something that goes through the brain. It's something that goes through all the organs and you feel that here is a force to be reckoned with. And that of course makes you more of a human being." (Michael Peppiatt, The Dark Side - Bacon in the 1950s, The Buffalo News, 8 May 2007).
For Badiou Fucking is Eventing: "Fucking is Eventing the Coming to Being of the Eventing that is a Finite Thing for fucking being Being there fucked for a in a Finite Space for a Finite Subject. What Fucking lacked despite this lack being legible for us after having Fucked what is Fucked for in this Fuck far from lacking founded the very possibility of a Modern Regime of the True that Foucault found in the Fuck that says: I Fuck therefore I am an Event of History and a Subject of Time that gives fucking for Being to be being in being a fuck: giving a Fuck for Being for the Being becoming the Event that being becomes through Fucking. For Fucking is the Event of Being a Subject of a Space for a Time and not for a Time to Come that is the None Event of the Nothing eventually Coming. For Fucking is the Radical Suspension and Severing of Truth from the semening supplementation of a being-in-situation by a fuck-event which is a separator of the Void being fucked forth for. The 'there is' being-fucked of the subject is the coming-to-being of the fuck-event fucked for via the ideal initiation of a truth in its infinite initiations. By cuntsequence what must always be fucked for is simply that there is no subject to be fucked forth for and that there are no longer some subjects fucking for some other subjects that fuck for nothing at all. In Fucking we do not Lose the Memory of it Being the Event alone which authorizes and activates Being which is called Fucking Being to fuck the Finite Space of a subject which is always already Fucking forth forward and ahead at an Infinite Space where and when the Nothing is the Eventing." (Alain Badiou, Being and Event, Continuum 2005).
For Badiou in the Event of Fucking there is only ever the One Being there fucking forth as the One Pair and never Two People present: "The Idea of the Pair Fucking the Nothing there is nothing other than the No Concept of the One minus the Other: one says One Pair of Eyes like we say One Pair of People where the Two Things are always already the One Thing coming apart as the Two of the One and the Same Thing for when Two People Fuck only One Person is Ever Present plus the Nothing in itself coming out itself for the Other of the One that is Not there and the Two that cannot be there because the Two is always already only One and the One and only for nothing comes after One but another One which is the One of the Other One that Others the One of the Other One and the Other of the One Other. So the Ones Fucking are really the One Fucking for the Other One not there for the Nothing that is there Fucking the One as the Infinite Number." (Alain Badiou, Being and Event, Continuum 2005).
For Alien Fucking is not a Sex Act but an Alien Event for fucking has nothing to do with sexuality at all and all to do with alienality as an aliening-athering for there are no sexed-subjects as such only anonymous alien-athers all alight and all wet with foreign feelings and strange sensations. Fucking is always already alien-ate-ing as an ab-ject-ing of the 'I' being there which is why there is always minus two eyes being there where one and one make minus one minus one plus the nothing there.
Fucking is Flying whilst Dwelling is Earthing being bound to the ground as Earthbounding whilst Fucking flies forth as an abground sprung Spunking. Fucking forth is fucking for the Godhead as the Absolute Nothingness coming along ahead of God as a Return of Amun beheading the God behind the Godhead becoming the Fuckgod.
For Amun Fucking is Autofellating where One Comes to One Becoming the One by Coming in One and then Spitting out the Spunking Being of our Beings to Come:
"When I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One who Came into Being in the Beginning when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One it meant that my Coming into Being was the Coming into Being of beings for I am more Primeval than the Primeval Ones whom I have Spunked. (Because) I have been Primeval among the Primeval Ones my No Name is much more Primeval than the They. (And when) I had Made the Primevalness of the Primeval Ones I did my every wish in this World in which I had become Abroad. I had clenched my Fist when I was all Alone before the They were born: I had not Spunk out Shu, I had not Spunked out Tefnut I had brought My own Mouth, my No Name was Magic: it was I who had Come into Being in being when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One. When I had Come into Being as the Primeval Ones a Multitude of beings Came into Being at Once before any being Came into Being in this World. I had Made every Spunked thing when I was all Alone before any other Came into Being who might Act with Me in that Place. I Made beings Being There through that shot Spunk of Mine." (Amun-Ra, Book of Knowing the Creations of Ra - trans: Alien - circa: 312-311 B.C.). Amun is the First Fuck for the First Fuck is the Fist Fuck as a Fuck Fist that Comes for the Thirst First.
Amun is the One and Only Absolute Autofellating Fuckgod as the Godhead ahead of God who cannot come to Being because God cannot come to Being God to begin with or to begin without at all so God fucked all but became fuck all so fucked forth fucking Being there to be fucking forth for God being there for Being coming for God who cannot Come for God cannot come off for God for God fucks for Being that fucked forth for God for a God that cannot Come for only Amun can Come coming all over again but by coming off without coming to being with Being because Amun is the Spunk Divine Sublime Dread Fuckgod that comes to a Godhead ahead of God behind Being.
We all come to God through God fucking our Being to come to the God Fuck for we cannot Fuck God even if we all wish to Fuck God in our various ways yet we cannot Fuck God whether we wish to or not or like it or not even though we all want to Fuck God for God remains unfucked and we all remain fucked for the nothing to come.
Two Figures Fucking with a Monkey 1973 Francis Bacon
Fucking is an absolute negation of sexual difference for fucking fucks difference apart altogether for fucking does not give a fuck for sexual difference which was always an artificial artefact and added on only after being began fucking the Nothing that knows nothing of sexual difference that never ever existed anyway.
Fucking is always alien to sexual difference since fucking is alien difference alien to the same difference of sexual difference that does not even exist at all.
Fucking is essentially our mooding moving moment of our being being fucked out of the world where we are fucked over by our other that is the mood that becomes our being from the onset from the outset from the outside: fucking is the mooding of the other outside coming in on us all coming in us all as an alluring aliening.
Fucking is in essence exiting-existing thus thrusting the thing-in-itself as abjected away and ahead of itself out-of-itself fucking for the other outside itself itself outside the other that fucks the other off and over as an abground out of order. Fucking happens because Nothing happens as what is fucked is undfucked as fucking beheads fucking through the fuck that fucks to forget the first thrust that fucks fucking forward forgetting fucking the fucked for fucking fucks fucking forever fucked.
Fucking is a Beheading of being both the being fucking and the being being fucked for in that Fucking is a Severing of Sein Serving a futuring for fucking is a Thrusting futuring as a deathing that fucking fears for and fucks forward for for fucking is the anticipation and attunement for the deathing Coming towards being fucked off for.
Fucking as a Deathing cannot cope with Living as a being-thing for Fucking fucks being-nothing as a being-death for fucking is a thinging for deathing the nothing for a death that can't come: fucking is a fulfilling of the nothing as an eternaling-deathing of the nothing fucking eternaling-returning the fucking nothing that time fucks for.
Fucking as a Thinging of the Thing that Things forth Fucks forth for the Nothing there to be Fucked for as ahead of being Being being beyond Being by being Fucked. For Fucking is for being fucked beyond Being being fucked for Fucking Being beheads being for Fucking forths being beyond Being by becoming Fucked for the Nothing.
Fucking is an Infiniting thing Thinging forever fucking forward the Nothing never Coming for Fucking is the Nevering of the Evering away and ahead always Coming never Arriving. Fucking is Infinite for a fuck is finite and finished with when Fucking finishes off with Being when Fucking comes off of Being coming off altogether for nothing at all but for the Nothing of Being forever Fucking forth for Infinity. Fucking is the Timing of the Thinging of the Coming of the Nothing of the Infiniting.
Fuck Time. Time Fuck. Fucking Time. Time Fucking. To Fuck is to Time. For Fucking is for Timing for Fucking is Timing for Fucking never Being in Time but all Time the Coming off Time to Come that Comes even with Coming. Fucking is the nevering Coming of Time not the evering Killing of Time as is often Fucked as is often Thinked. For Fucking is the forgetting of Time being fucked: time being fucked for time not for being for fucking fucks being free from time for fucking to be free for time being being fucked off.
Being Time being Fucked being Fucked for the Time Being. Being the Time Fucking Fucking the Time Being. Forever fucking-for-nothing the Nothing Coming.
Francis Bacon: Portrait with Blanket 2 Giacobetti 1992 Francis Bacon: Portrait with Blanket 4 Giacobetti 1992
Being & Love
Osis Osiris (Roman Quintana) A.V.E July 2009
"Love is Other Beings."
Alex Alien (1959-2007).
"Love aims at the Other."
Emmanuel Lévinas, (1906-1995).
"Love is the beauty of the soul."
Saint Augustine (354-430).
"It is safer to be feared than loved."
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).
"If you want to be loved, be lovable."
Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-17 AD).
"I am mortal, born to love and to suffer."
Friedrich Hölderlin (1770 - 1843).
“Being's Name is Love - its Work is Death."
Alex Alien, Being & Loving, 2007.
"Love forgives the beloved even his lust."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1882.
"If I love you, what business is it of yours?"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832).
"Love takes us where knowledge leaves off."
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274).
"Because of Deep Love, we are courageous."
Lao-Tse (604-531 BCE).
"What goes by the name of love is banishment."
Samuel Beckett, First Love, 1973.
"Love blots out its name: to you it ascribes itself."
Paul Celan, Poems of Paul Celan, Persea Books, 1983.
"Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies."
Aristotle (384-322 BCE).
"Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness."
Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939).
"The way to love anything is to realise that it might be lost."
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874 - 1936).
"Abraham wanted not to love, wanted to be free by not loving."
G.W.F. Hegel, The Spirit of Christianity, 1798-1799.
"Love is all we have, the only way that each can help the other."
Euripides (c. 480–406 BC).
"A man doesn't learn to understand anything unless he loves it."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832).
"Augustine once said: I love you - I want you to be what you are."
Martin Heidegger to Hannah Arendt, 1925.
"Discourse is not love... Metaphysics approaches without touching."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality and Infinity, 1961.
"What I needed most was to love and to be loved, eager to be caught."
Saint Augustine (354-430).
"That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
"Love is something spoken, and it is only that: poets have always known it."
Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love, 1983, Columbia University Press, 1987.
"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead."
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970).
"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other."
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875 – 1926).
"Love will make men dare to die for their beloved-love alone; and women as well as men."
Plato, Symposium, (360 BCE).
"Love is only possible through the idea of the Infinite, through the Infinite placed in me."
Emmanuel Lévinas, God & Philosophy; The Idea of God, 1975.
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Lao Tzu (c 600 B.C).
"Love is a springtime plant that perfumes everything with its hope, even the ruins to which it clings."
Gustave Flaubert (1821 - 1880).
"Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak, pawned a part of their narcissism."
Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939).
"The important thing is not to think much but to love much and so do that which best stirs you to love."
Saint Teresa of Ávila, (1515 – 1582).
"Love is not vain because it is frustrated, but because it is fulfilled. The people we love turn to ashes when we possess them."
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922).
"The aim of all life is love for love knows nothing of death for there is no death where there is love that shines forth ahead of death for love lives on after death."
Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Loving, 2007.
"Lesbian love carries spiritualization forth into the very womb of the woman. There it raises its lily-banner of 'pure' love, which knows no pregnancy and no family."
Walter Benjamin, Central Park; Theory of Remembrance, 1939.
"But people go to bars to be closer to each other. The frustration is that people can never be close enough to each other. If you're in love you can't break down the barriers of the skin."
Francis Bacon, Francis Bacon: His Life & Violent Times, Andrew Sinclair, Crown Publishers, 1993.
"The powers of Evening sever a lock of hair. For the Heavenly, when - Someone has failed to collect his soul, to spare it, - Are angry, for still he must; like him - Here mourning is at fault."
Friedrich Hölderlin, Mnemosyne, (1770-1843).
“Love brings to light the high and the hidden characteristics of the person who loves — what is rare and exceptional about him: to that extent it can mislead us about what is normal in him.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.
"Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. The consciousness of loving and being loved brings a warmth and richness to life that nothing else can bring."
Oscar Wilde, (1854-1900).
“Let the future and the farthest be for you the cause of your today: in your friend you shall love the overman as your cause. My brothers, love of the neighbour I do not recommend to you: I recommend to you love of the farthest. — Thus spoke Zarathustra.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, On Love of the Neighbour; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.
“I am granted the scent of the sweetness created for me by those in Kheraha, and those in Iunu. Every god is in fear of me, so great is dread of me, so extensive awe of me, I have championed every god from his detractor, I have shot at his emergence, I live by love of me....”
Amun-Ra, Chapter 17, Book of the Dead, circa: 2025-1700 BC.
“People do not die for us immediately, but remain bathed in a sort of aura of life which bears no relation to true immortality but through which they continue to occupy our thoughts in the same way as when they were alive. It is as though they were travelling abroad."
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922).
“Being is desirable because it is identical with Beauty, and Beauty is loved because it is Being. We ourselves possess Beauty when we are true to our own being; ugliness is in going over to another order; knowing ourselves, we are beautiful; in self-ignorance, we are ugly.”
Plotinus (205 AD - 270 AD).
“The human being's bodily being can never, fundamentally never, be considered merely as something present-at-hand if one wants to consider it in an appropriate way. If I postulate human bodily being as something present-at-hand, I have already before hand destroyed the body as body.”
Martin Heidegger, Conversations with Medard Boss, 1963, Sicily; Zollikon Seminars, Northwestern University Press, 2001.
“If the couple of lovers cannot care for the place of love like a third term between them, then they will not remain lovers and they cannot give birth to lovers. Something gets solidified in space-time with the loss of a vital intermediary milieu and of an accessible, loving, transcendental.”
Luce Irigaray, An ethics of sexual difference, Editions de Minuit 1984; Continuum, 2004.
"But maybe at the beginning, I painted to be loved…yes, that’s certainly right. It’s so nice being loved. Now I don’t give a toss, I’m old. At the same time it gives you such pleasure if people like what you do. Today I paint very little, although I do paint in the morning because I’m unable to stop; or I paint when I’m in love..."
Francis Bacon, The Last Interview 1991 - 92; with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.
"Through the work of mourning [the bereaved individual] is reinstating all his loved internal objects which he feels he has lost . . . Every advance in the process of mourning results in a deepening of the individual’s relation to his inner objects, in the happiness of regaining them when they were felt to be lost."
Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation, 1937; London: Hogarth Press, 1975.
“Men do not understand how a thing which is torn in different directions comes into accord with itself - harmony in contrarity, as in the case of the bow or the lyre... What was scattered gathers. What was gathered blows apart... Yearning hurts, and what release - may come of it - feels much like death... The beginning is the end.”
“The slash of paint with which he transforms the features of a friend is a gesture of love so fierce that that it makes a revolting wound. 'Each man kills the thing he loves,' quotes Bacon from Oscar Wilde - and he adds, typically, 'Is that true? I don't know.' Tension breeds violence, and violence is everywhere in Bacon's work.”
Nigel Gosling, Francis Bacon: Genius of Violence, The Observer, 5th March, 1967.
“That I am a great worry to her, making her dying more difficult, you will probably appreciate. The last hour I spent with my mother... was a piece of 'practical philosophy' that will remain with me. I believe that to most philosophers the question of theology and philosophy, or rather faith and philosophy, is a purely academic question.”
Martin Heidegger, Correspondence with Karl Jaspers, 1927; Ed. Walter Biemel & Hans Saner, Frankfurt & Munich, 1990.
"Tis night: now do all the gushing fountains speak louder. And my soul is also a gushing fountain. 'Tis night: now only do all songs of the loving ones awake. And my soul also is the song of a loving one. Something unappeased, unappeased, is within me; it longeth to find expression. A craving for love is within me, which speaketh itself the language of love."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Night Song, 1884; Thus Spake Zarathustra, Wordsworth Editions, 1997.
“There is, in the event that is love, an absolute trust - absolute and also, therefore, secret and obscure. Each lover trusts the other and entrusts themselves to the other, frantically and passionately. An event of this kind, if and when it happens, owes nothing to either freedom or autonomy. It lies outside ethics and law and outside ties of violence or respect.”
Sylviane Agacinski, Critique of Egocentrism; Modern French Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.
"He is I, and I am he, Send forth thy light upon me, 0 Soul unknown, for I am one of those who are about to enter in, and the divine speech is in my ears in the underworld, and let no defects of my mother be imputed unto me; let me be delivered and let me be kept safe from him whose divine eyes sleep at eventide, when he gathereth together and finisheth the day in night."
Budge, E.A.W., The Egyptian Book of the Dead, p. 221.
"I can't give you anything but love, Baby, That's the only thing I've plenty of, Baby. Dream awhile, scheme awhile, We're sure to find, Happiness, and I guess, All those things you've always pined for. Gee, I'd like to see you looking swell, Baby, Diamond bracelets Woolworth doesn't sell, Baby. 'Till that lucky day, you know darned well, Baby, I can't give you anything but love."
Dorothy Fields & Jimmy McHugh, I Can't But You Anything But Love, Baby (1928).
"For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher: or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant. And of this too his birth is the cause; for his father is wealthy and wise, and his mother poor and foolish. Such, my dear Socrates, is the nature of the spirit Love."
Plato, Symposium, 360 B.C.E.
u hold in the other's heart.
"Love is founded on the understanding of being just as much as is care in the anthropological [psychological] sense. One can even expect that the essential determination of love, which looks for a guideline in the fundamental-ontological determination of Da-sein, will be deeper and more comprehensive than the one seeing love as something higher than care."
Martin Heidegger, Conversations with Medard Boss, March 8, 1965; Zollikon Seminars, Northwestern University Press, 2001.
"Its very clear, Our love is here to stay, Not for a year, But ever and a day. The radio and the telephone and the movies that we know May just be passing fancies, And in time may go. But oh, my dear, Our love is here to stay; Together were going a long, long way. In time the Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, They’re only made of clay, But our love is here to stay."
George & Ira Gershwin, Our Love Is Here To Stay (1938).
"Humans have always misunderstood love: they think tat in loving they are selfless because they want another being's advantage, often to their own disadvantage: but on the other hand they want to possess that being... In other cases love is a subtler parasitism, one soul's dangerous and unscrupulous nesting in another soul - or occasionally in the flesh... oh! at what cost to the 'host!... I never desecrated the holy name of love."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Late Notebooks, 1885 - 1888.
"Love is originary. I'm not speaking theologically at all; I myself don't use it much, the word love, it is a worn-out and ambiguous word. And then, too, there is something severe in this love; this love is commanded... The essential thing is fusion. We say that love is a fusion, that it triumphs in fusion. Diotima, in Plato's Symposium, says that love as such is a demigod, precisely because he is only separation and desire for the other."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Philosophy, Justice and Love; On Thinking-of-the-Other, The Athlone Press, 1998.
"Well, happiness and love is a wonderful thing to paint also. I always hope I will be able to do it. After all, it's only the reverse side of the shadow, isn't it? If you really love life you're walking in the shadow of death all the time... Death is the shadow of life, and the more one is obsessed with life the more one is obsessed with death. I'm greedy for life and I'm greedy as an artist."
Francis Bacon, Interview with Francis Bacon, Richard Cork; Francis Bacon: Paintings 1981-1991, New York, Marlborough Galleries, 1992.
"What if there simply is no 'truly democratic' Palestinian silent majority?.. And what the refuseniks have achieved is a reconceptualisation of the Palestinian from homo sacer to 'neighbour': they treat Palestinians not as 'equal full citizens', but as neighbours in the strict Judeo-Christian sense. And there resides the difficult ethical test for contemporary Israelis: 'Love thy neighbour' means 'Love the Palestinian,' or it means nothing at all."
Slavoj Žižek, Are we in a war? Do we have an enemy?; London Review of Books, 22 May, 2002.
"Red lips are not so red As the stained stones kissed by the English dead Kindness of wooed and wooer Seems shame to their love pure. O Love, your eyes lose lure When I behold eyes blinded in my stead! Your slender attitude Trembles not exquisite like limbs knife-skewed, Rolling and rolling there Where God seems not to care; Till the fierce Love they bear Cramps them in death's extreme decrepitude."
Wilfed Owen, Greater Love, (1893-1918).
"A full and powerful soul can not only cope with painful, even terrible losses, privations, dispossessions and disdain: from such hells it emerges fuller and more powerful and - the crucial thing - with a new growth in the blissfulness of love. I believe that the man who has sensed something of the deepest conditions of every growth in love will understand Dante when he wrote over the gate to his Inferno: 'I too was created by eternal love.' ..."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Note Book 7, 1886 - 1887.
"One becomes a subject of being not by assuming being but in enjoying happiness, by the interiorization of enjoyment which is also an exaltation, an 'above being.' The existent is 'autonomous' with respect to being; it designates not a participation in being, but happiness. The existent par excellence is man... In Kant the I is met with again in this need for happiness. To be I is to exist in such a way as to be already beyond being, in happiness."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Affectivity as the Ipseity of the I; Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.
"In Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare was not promoting love without familiar guardianship; but without the longing for a situation in which love would no longer be mutilated or condemned by patriarchal or any other powers, the presence of the two lost in one another would not have the sweetness - the wordless, imageless utopia - over which, to this day, the centuries have been powerless; the taboo that prohibits knowledge of any positive utopia also reigns over artworks."
Theodor W. Adorno, Society; Aesthetic Theory, The Athlone Press, London 1997.
"Love? I have nothing to say about love... At least pose a question. I can't just examine 'love' just like that. You need to pose a question. I'm not capable of talking in generalities about love. I'm not capable...Why have philosophers always spoken of love? That's how philosophy started... No .. no.. no .. no.. it's not possible... I have an empty head on love in general... And as for the reason philosophy has often spoken of love, I either have nothing to say, or I'd just be reciting clichés."
Jacques Derrida, Derrida, Amy Zeiring Kofman and Kirby Dick, 2002.
"Narrow bands dividing us, fall away! Sacrifice alone is the heart's true way! I expand myself to you, as you to me. May what isolates us go up in fire, cease to be. For life is only reciprocated, By love in love is it alone created. To the kindred soul abandoned, The heart opens up in strength gladdened. Once the spirit atop free mountains has flown, It holds back nothing of its own. Living to see myself in you, and you to see yourself in me, In the enjoyment of celestial bliss shall we be."
G. W. F. Hegel, Poem to Marie von Tucher, April 13th, 1811.
"On Derrida's terms, we do not know the name of what we desire with a desire beyond desire. That means that leading a just life comes down to coping with such non-knowing, negotiating among the several competing names that fluctuate undecidably before us, each pretending to name what we are praying for. For we pray and weep for something that is coming, something I know not what, something nameless that in always slipping away also draws us in its train... Adieu, Jacques."
John D. Caputo, Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004), Cross Currents, Vol. 55, No 4, Winter 2005-06.
“What is the void summoned here by the declaration of love? It is the void - unknown - of the disjunction... 'I love you' brackets side by side two pronouns, a 'you' and an 'I', that cannot be bracketed side by side as soon as they are referred to the disjunction. The declaration nominally fixes the encounter as that whose being resides in the void of the disjunction. A Two that proceeds amorously is specifically the name of the disjunct as apprehended in its disjunction. Love is the interminable fidelity to a first naming.”
Alain Badiou, What is Love?; Conditions, Continuum, 2008.
“There is in man’s nature a secret inclination
and motion, towards love of others, which if it be not spent upon some one or a
few, doth naturally spread itself towards many, and maketh men become humane and
charitable; as it is seen sometime in friars. Nuptial love maketh mankind;
friendly love perfecteth it... For it is a true rule, that love is ever
rewarded either with the reciproque or with an inward and secret contempt. By
how much the more men ought to beware of this passion, which loseth not only
other things, but itself!”
Francis Bacon, (1561–1626) Of Love; Essays, Civil and Moral, The Harvard Classics, 1909–14.
"If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity... To love someone is to isolate him from the world, wipe out every trace of him, dispossess him of his shadow, drag him into a murderous future. It is to circle around the other like a dead star and absorb him into a black light...There exists, between people in love, a kind of capital held by each. This is not just a stock of affects or pleasure, but also the possibility of playing double or quits with the share you hold in the other's heart."
Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007).
"Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the loving one: thou lovest thyself, and on that account despisest thou thyself, as only the loving ones despise. To create, desireth the loving one, because he despiseth! What knoweth he of love who hath not been obliged to despise just what he loved! With thy love, go into thine isolation, my brother, and with thy creating; and late only will justice limp after thee. With my tears, go into thine isolation, my brother. I love him who seeketh to create beyond himself, and thus succumbeth. — Thus spoke Zarathustra."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Way of the Creating One; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.
“How can you be satisfied? Because everything escapes you, you know that perfectly well. You know, even if you're in love with somebody, everything escapes you. You would want to be nearer that person - how can you cut your flesh open and join it with the other person - it is an impossibility to do - so it is with art. It is almost like a long affair with objects and images and sensations and what you can call the passions. It is very much like that. You may love somebody very much, but how near can you get to them? You're still always unfortunately sort of strangers.”
Francis Bacon, Bacon's Arena, Adam Low, BBC 2, 2005.
power of love - which is the manifestation of the forces which tend to preserve
life - is there in the baby as well as the destructive impulses, and finds its
first fundamental expression in the baby’s attachment to his mother’s breast
which develops into love for her as a person. My psycho-analytic work has
convinced me that when in the baby’s mind the conflicts between love and hate
arise, and the fears of losing the loved one become active, a very important
step is made in development. These feelings of guilt and distress now enter as a
new element in the emotion of love.”
Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation, 1937; London: Hogarth Press, 1975.
“Thus we come back to the love 'as strong as death.' It is not a matter of a force that could repel the death inscribed in my being. However, it is not my nonbeing that causes anxiety, but that of the loved one or of the other, more beloved than my being. What we call, by a somewhat corrupted term, love, is par-excellence the fact that the death of the other affects me more than my own. The love of the other is the emotion of the other's death. In my receiving the other - and not the anxiety of death awaiting me - that is the reference to death. We encounter death in the face of the other.”
Emmanuel Lévinas, A Reading of Bloch: Toward a Conclusion; Friday, May 7, 1976.
“The fact that Hannah Arendt did not then compel Heidegger to come to a decision about her does not, of course, mean that she did not expect him to arrive at one. The secrecy, after all, was his game. In her eyes, it was he who would have to raise their relationship to a more compact reality... Heidegger loves Arendt, and he will love her for a long time yet. He takes her seriously as a woman who understands him; she becomes his muse for Being and Time. He will admit to her that without her he could not have written that work. But at no time will he realize that he might learn from her.”
Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger - Between Good and Evil, Harvard University Press, 1998.
“I love things that are not there... I love love that is not there, but which floats like an invisible city, like an inconceivable smell. Love that awakens the desires for enchanted lands, filling the head with visions, giving strength and grandeur, leading all beings to completion, presenting one with wonderful garments woven with figurative strength... I love passion that does not exist... I love thoughts that are not there... I love beauty in everything and nothing but beauty. I only love the soul. Bodies I am indifferent to... You see, I am so much outside life that everything unattainable is, for me, more precious than reality.”
Marianne von Werefkin, Briefe an einen Unbekannten 1901-1905, Clemens Weiler, Cologne, 1960.
“Between one and the other, between a male one and a female one, there is, at least at present, no passage. Being would be a waiting whose opening has closed itself up in a circle - likewise in oblivion - so that the thinker can remain at rest there... The other - or the female one - has let herself be used as a bridge-being at the end of which is nothing: this passage is but an eternal return to the same... What is man, before the Being of man already is? ... Man makes himself come about in forgetting. No being without forgetting... This is the terror of forgetting, this inside-outside cry of she who is absent, who cannot disappear.”
Luce Irigaray, The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1999.
“Dear Hannah! Why is love rich beyond all other possible human experiences and a sweet burden to those seized in its grasp? Because we become what we love and yet remain ourselves. Then we want to thank the beloved, but find nothing that suffices. We can only thank with out selves. Love transforms gratitude into loyalty to our selves and unconditional faith in the other. That is how love steadily intensifies its innermost secret. Here, being close is a matter of being at the greatest distance from the other - distance that lets nothing blur - but instead puts 'thou' into mere presence - transparent but incomprehensible - of a revelation...Your M.”
Martin Heidegger to Hannah Arendt, February 21, 1925; Letters 1925-1975, Ed. Ursula Ludz. Harcourt, 2004.
"Consciousness must act solely that what it inherently and implicitly is, may be for it explicitly; or, acting is is just the process of mind coming to be qua consciousness. What it is implicitly, therefore, it knows from its actual reality. Hence it is that an individual cannot know what he is till he has made himself real by action... He has to start right away and, whatever the circumstances are, without troubling further about beginning, means, or end, proceed to action at once. For its essential and implicit nature is beginning, means, and end all in one. As beginning, it is found in the circumstances of the action..."
G.W.F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Harper & Row, New York 1967.
all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's
keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is.
Then I fell in love, head over heels in love, with the most wonderful boy in the
We would take long walks by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes. We were so very much in love. Then one day he went away and I thought I'd die, but I didn't, and when I didn't I said to myself, ‘is that all there is to love? Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Is that all there is, is that all there is."
Peggy Lee, Is That All There is?, Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller, 1969.
"Isn't it time to free ourselves from the loved one, and bear the tension - as the arrow endures the tensed string - to gather its forces - and spring to a state of being that is more than it could ever be? It is death to stand still. And its hard, being dead, and takes much difficult recapitulation - to glimpse the tiniest hint of eternity. The living, though, are too ready to posit a border - between two states of being: a human mistake. Angels, it's said, are often uncertain - whether they traverse the living or the dead. The eternal current pours through both worlds, bearing all ages with it, and over powers their voices with their song. They finally need us no longer."
Rainer Maria Rilke, The First Elegy; Duino Elegies, 1912-1922.
"I don't believe in love really - I mean love is marvellous if it happens - I would have said sexual love - sexual obsession was the strongest one - I think there's only sexual obsession - what is love - ask me - what is love? - I would of thought love was just - in so far as you can be descent from one person to another - after all god knows that's rare enough - Sex is sex - is what it is isn't it? - sex is what it is - sex is what it is - it's the moment of ecstasy - if you like the person or if you don't even like them - but it's the moment - but it's really the moment of coming isn't it? - of coming off - that's what 'em - that's what pleasure is - isn't it? - Cheers!"
Francis Bacon to Daniel Farson, Bacon's Arena, Adam Low, BBC 2, 2005.
"To love is to exist as if the lover and the loved one were alone in the world. The intersubjective relation of love is not the beginning of society, but its negation. And that is certainly an indication of its essence. Love is the I satisfied by the thou, grasping in the other the justification of its being. The presence of the other exhausts the content of such as society. The affective warmth of love is the fulfillment of the consciousness of that satisfaction, that contentment, that fullness found outside the self, eccentric to it. The society of love is a society of two, a society of solitudes, resisting universality... No one is identical to himself. Beings have no identity."
Emmanuel Lévinas, The I and the Totality; On Thinking-of-the-Other, The Athlone Press, 1998.
"What I love in the person I love - to the point of wanting to die from this love - isn't some individual existence but the universal aspect of that person. Love is my necessity. I'm impelled to drift into happiness, sensing chance there... Love is simple, uncomplicated... My wish is that in any love of the unknown we can, by ousting transcendence, attain such great simplicity as to relate that love to an earthly love, echoing it to infinity... Time is the same as desire. The object of desire is for time not to exist. Time is the desire for time not to exist...What was I desperately in love with? A glimpse, an open door. A sudden impulse and an irrepressible need..."
Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, New York 1992.
“Moods or attunements cannot be forced, nor ever forcibly altered: only another mood can budge the one we happen to be in, Heidegger says in Being and Time. Here he emphasizes that one can only let attunement be. Rather, 'mood' and 'attunement' are taken as modes of Befindlichkeit, the primary disclosure that constitutes the Da- of Dasein... Can a fundamental attunement or mood be attained? Do we ever gain access to it? And if if our philosophizing depends on our immersion in a fundamental, founding mood, does such immersion promise anything like transparency? How can we know whether we are at home, whether we are truly there in there-being?”
David Farrell Krell, Daimon Life - Heidegger & Life-Philosophy, Indiana University Press, 1992.
“Call us what you will, we are made such by love; We can die by it, if not live by love, And if unfit for tomb or hearse Our legend be, it will be fit for verse; And if no piece of chronicle we prove, We'll build in sonnets pretty rooms As well a well-wrought urn becomes The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs, And by these hymns, all shall approve Us canonized for love: And thus invoke us, You, whom reverend love Made one another's hermitage; You, to whom love was peace, that now is rage; Who did the whole world's soul contract, and drove Into the glasses of your eyes ; (So made such mirrors, and such spies, That they did all to you epitomize,) A pattern of your love!”
John Donne, The Canonization; The Love Poems of John Donne, Dean of St. Paul's, Zodiac Books, 1950.
"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it! Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now!"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), trans. William Hutchinson Murray (1913-1996).
"To preach love already presupposes in those to whom one appeals a character structure different from the one that needs to be changed. For the people whom one should love are themselves such that they cannot love, and therefore in turn are not at all that lovable... Moreover, love cannot be summoned in professionally mediated relations like that of teacher and student, doctor and patient, lawyer and client. Love is something immediate and in essence contradicts mediated relationships. The exhortation to love - even in its imperative form, that one should do it - is itself part of the ideology coldness perpetuates. It bears the compulsive, oppressive quality that counteracts the ability to love."
Theodor W. Adorno, Education after Auschwitz, 1967; Can One Live After Auschwitz?, Stanford University Press, 2003.
“Everybody says love is about finding the person who is right for me and then everything will be fine. But it's not like that. It involves work. An old man tells you this!... I insist on this - that solving the existential problems of love is life's great joy. There is a kind of serenity in love which is almost paradise... Well, I absolutely agree that sex needs to be freed from morality. I'm not going to speak against the freedom to experiment sexually like some old arse - un vieux connard - but when you liberate sexuality, you don't solve the problems of love. That's why I propose a new philosophy of love, wherein you can't avoid problems or working to solve them... Everybody wants a contract that guarantees them against risk. Love isn't like that. You can't buy a lover. Sex, yes, but not a lover. "
Alain Badiou, A Life in Writing, Review, Guardian, 19.05.12.
“In To Be Two and I Love To You I've tried to open a path towards such a construction of the transcendence of the other.... All relationships with the other now involve a negative: in language of course - for example; 'I love to you' and not 'I love you' - but also in perceiving, in listening, in touching. In To Be Two I try to define a new way of approaching the other, emphasizing how we can caress each other without losing either the I or the thou... Substituting the two for the one in sexual difference corresponds, then, to a decisive philosophical and political gesture, one which renounces being one or many in favour of being-two as the necessary foundation of a new ontology, a new ethics, and a new politics in which the other is recognised as other and not as the same: greater, smaller, at best equal to me.”
Luce Irigaray, Democracy Begins Between Two; French Women Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.
"To embrace a 'thing' or a 'person' in its essence means to love it, to favour it. Thought in a more original way such favouring means to bestow essence as a gift. Such favouring is the proper essence of enabling, which not only can achieve this or that but also can let something essentially unfold in its provenance, that is, let it be. It is on the 'strength' of such enabling by favouring that something is properly able to be. This enabling is what is properly 'possible', whose essence resides in favouring. From this favouring Being enable thinking. The former makes the latter possible. Being is the enabling-favouring, the 'may-be'. As the element, Being is the 'quiet-power' of the favouring-enabling, that is, of the possible... To enable something here means to preserve it in its essence, to maintain it in its element."
Martin Heidegger, Letter on Humanism, 1947.
"You are not the other. - Are you crying? Don't cry. I love you for these failings. I love how you smell of the primeval forest. I love your not knowing good and evil. I love your ignorance of half the world. I am delighted that you don't know your own power... Night comes. - I've been in touch with you all day, Promethea, do you understand that? - It's love. - But sometimes in the midst of love there are wars, walls, sometimes there are foreign languages separating love, a crowd of strangers, sometimes one can pass by each other at a distance of years, centuries, histories... Love is often scoured, invaded, spoiled. And then love thinks of love. But today I didn't have to think about you... I'll never have you enough. It is torture. It is luck. I love you too much, I love you illegally: I love you truly. I love you when I didn't love you yet."
Hélène Cixous, The Book of Promethea, University of Nebraska Press, 1991.
"The lover is a narcissist with an object. Love involves a sizable aufhebung of narcissism; consequently, the relationship established by Freud between love and narcissism must not cause us to forget their essential difference. Is it not true that the narcissist, as such, is precisely someone incapable of love? The lover, in fact, reconciles narcissism and hysteria. As far as he is concerned, there is an idealizable other who returns his own ideal image (that is the narcissistic moment), but he is nevertheless an other. It is essential for the lover to maintain the existence of that ideal other and to be able to imagine himself similar, merging with him, and even indistinguishable from him. In amorous hysteria the ideal Other is a reality, not a metaphor... 'Narcissistic structure' thus remains a permanent fixture in the love grievances that beckon to us..."
Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love, 1983, Columbia University Press, 1987.
"Thinking men and artists have not infrequently described a sense of being not quite there, of not playing along, a feeling as if they were not themselves at all, but a kind of spectator. Others often find this repulsive; it was the basis of Kierkegaard's polemic against what he called the esthetic sphere... People, of course, are spellbound without exception, and none of them are capable of love, which is why everyone feels loved too little... Spellbound, the living have a choice between involuntary ataraxy - an esthetic life due to weakness - and the bestiality of the involved. Both are wrong ways of living... The only trouble with self-preservation is that we cannot help suspecting the life to which it attaches us of turning into something that makes us shudder: into a specter, a piece of the world of ghosts, which our waking consciousness perceives to be nonexistent."
Theodor W. Adorno, After Auschwitz; Negative Dialectics, Routledge, 1973.
"For often we do not know what we love, and we must wait to know, wait on the other. Wooing we are at the opposite extreme to any will to power with pretensions to complete control. Wooing awaits in love and the sweet kiss that answers may inspire from the very roots up of our mortal passio essendi... If wooing is a kind of willing, or being willing, it is not will to power. It awaits something other being given... The Good seems to be an unoriginated original that yet is communicative of other-being as originated. Is the Good itself good? We love the good but does the good love us, or the beings that come to be? If the Good were an agapeic origin, would its being not be something like an unconstrained love of the 'to be' that gives being beyond itself? Can one think this giving as original, radically originative? Is it possible to think this thought?"
William Desmond, Art, Origins, Otherness, State University of New York Press, 2003.
"The violence of love leads to tenderness, the lasting form of love, but it brings into the striving of one heart towards another the same quality of disorder, the same first for losing consciousness and the same after-taste of death that is found in the mutual desire for each other's body. In essence, love raises the feeling of of one being for another to such a pitch that the threatened loss of the beloved or the loss of his love is felt no less keenly than the threat of death. Hence love is based on a desire to live in anguish in the presence of an object of such high worth that the heart cannot bear to contemplate losing it. The fever of the senses is not a desire to die. Nor is love the desire to lose but the desire to live in fear of possible loss, with the beloved holding the lover on the very threshold of a swoon. At that price alone can we feel the violence of rapture before the beloved."
Georges Bataille, Sensuality, tenderness and love; Eroticism, 1957.
“Where is beauty? Where I have to will with all my will; where I want to love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image. Loving and perishing: these have gone together from eternity. Will to love: than means to be willing to die, too. Thus I speak to you cowards!.. For it is already coming, the lowing sun, - its love of the earth is coming! All sun-love is innocence and creative desire! Just look how it comes impatiently over the sea! Do you not feel the thirst and the hot breath of its love? It wants to suck at the sea and drink the sea's depths up to its height: now the sea's desire rises with a thousand breasts. It wants to be kissed and sucked by the sun's thirst; it wants to become air and height and light's footpath and light itself! Truly, like the sun do I love life and all deep seas. And this I call knowledge: all that is deep shall rise up - to my height! — Thus spoke Zarathustra.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Of Immaculate Perception; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.
"Love wants union. The desire that one might call metaphysical is a desire for what we are not in want of, a desire that cannot be satisfied and that does not desire union with what it desires. It desires what the one who desires has no need of, what is not lacking and what the one who desires has no desire to attain, it being the very desire for what must remain inaccessible and foreign - a desire of the other as other, a desire that is austere, disinterested, without satisfaction, without nostalgia, unreturned, and without return... Eros is still the nostalgic desire for lost unity, the movement of return toward true Being. Metaphysical desire is desire for that with which one has never been united, the desire of a self not only separated but happy with the separation that makes it a self, and yet still in relation with that from which it remains separated and of which it has no need: the unknown, the foreign, autrui."
Maurice Blanchot, Knowledge of the Unknown; Plural Speech; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota, 1993.
"Heidegger never focuses on thwarted love, a theme of primary concern in Rilke's work: love renounced, rather than 'my death,' is the ground of resoluteness in Rilke's poetry. Thus a language of love as a mode of reaching toward another person is a primordial facet of poetic discourse in Rilke's work which remains unnoticed by Heidegger... The paradigm of resoluteness in Rilke's poetry is not one's own death but the relation to another from whom nothing is to be expected... Rilke's view of love is not that of the intellectual eros of Plato's Symposium but that of Christain renunciation... Heidegger does not address the theme of eros in his essay on Rilke, nor does love form a significant part of Heidegger's thinking in any of his major published works. This is especially conspicuous in his analysis of Dasein, who may be anguished, guilty, resolute, fearful, domineering, or solicitous - but never in love."
Edith Wyschogrod, Spirit in Ashes: Hegel, Heidegger, and Man-Made Mass Death, Yale University Press 1985.
"Heidegger wrote little about love. If you engage in thinking about love, I suspect that you will find that Edgar Allan Poe's poem Annabel Lee is in the neighborhood of the region of your thought. Harkening to the poem's second stanza, I would suggest that great love includes a childhood innocence. Hence, Annabel Lee leads the person engaged in thinking about love to think about the necessity of childhood innocence for the emerging and existence of a great love. There is no method or theme to such thinking. A great love is the topic which engages your thinking, a topic which poetry can help you to illuminate. I should mention that Plato, who was no great defender of poets, banishing most of them from his ideal republic, includes learning from poetry in many of his dialogues. For instance, in the Symposium, in which the God of love is praised by a circle of speakers, two of the speakers, Phaedrus and Agathon, recite verses of poetry to support their thinking."
Haim Gordon, Heidegger On Poetry And Thinking: Some Educational Implications, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1998.
"According to Hegel, the notions of self-love and self-consciousness combine to form the identity of God. For the Christian, God is love. The speculative significance of this claim emerges with the recognition that 'love implies a differentiation between two who are, however, not merely different from one another. Love is this feeling of being outside myself, the feeling and consciousness of this identity. I have myself-consciousness not in myself, but in another in whom alone I am satisfied and am at peace with myself - and I am only insofar as I am at peace with myself, for if I do not have this, I am the contradiction that sunders itself.' The love relation provides a representation (Vorstellung) of God that points toward the more complete expression of divine subjectivity disclosed in the structure of self-consciousness. God's self-love is, of course, impossible apart from His self-knowledge... Created in the image of God, the human subject reflects divine subjectivity."
Mark C. Taylor, Erring - A Postmodern A/theology, University of Chicago Press, 1984.
"Love, Lévinas says, is characterised by an essential and insatiable hunger. Unlike the desire to eat, amorous desire is not merely an agitation (trouble) that precedes the attempt at gratification but is a desire augmented by such an attempt. In love, Lévinas says, 'the burning bush which feeds the flame is not consumed'; or, rather, since it is the inexhaustibility of the flame that is at issue, 'the burning bush that feeds the flame does not extinguish it.' We can, however, be mistaken about the nature of our desire. We confuse love with the hunger for food, and as this hunger is satisfied through the consumption of a food object we attempt to sate desire with the consumption of a love object; thus, he says, 'the ridiculous and tragic simulation in kissing and biting.'... If the inability to be satisfied by an object (or an act, one might add) - what Lévinas calls the 'pathos' of love - is the essence of love it must also be the source of its pleasures: 'The very positivity of love lies in its negativity.'..."
Stella Stanford, The Metaphysics of Love, The Athlone Press, 2000.
"Love aims at the Other; it aims at him in his frailty... To love is to fear for another, to come to the assistance of his frailty. In this frailty as in the dawn rises the Loved, who is the Beloved. An epiphany of the Loved, the feminine is not added to an object and a Thou antecedently given or encountered in the neuter (the sole gender formal logic knows). The epiphany of the Beloved is but one with her regime of tenderness. The way of the tender consists in an extreme fragility, a vulnerability. It maintains itself at the limit of being and non-being, as a soft warmth where being dissipates into radiance, like the 'pale blush' of the nymphs in the Afternoon of a Faun, which 'leaps in the air drowsy with thick slumbers,' dis-individualizing and relieving itself of its own weight of being, already evanescence and swoon, flight into self in the very midst of its manifestation...The movement of the lover before this frailty of femininity, indulges in compassion, is absorbed in the complacence of the caress."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Phenomenology of Eros; Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.
"But what do they love? Let us then speak of love. What does it mean to 'love' something? For if love is the measure, the only measure of love is love without measure (Augustine again). One of the ideas behind 'love' is that it represents a giving without holding back, an 'unconditional' commitment which marks love with a certain excess... Love is not a bargain, but an unconditional giving; it is not an investment, but a commitment come what may. Lovers are people who exceed their duty, who look around for ways to do more than is required of them... Rather than rigorously defending their rights, lovers readily put themselves in the wrong and take the blame for the sake of preserving their love. Love, St. Paul said in his stunning hymn to love, is patient, kind, not puffed up or boastful; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...The mark of really loving someone or something is unconditionality and excess, engagement and commitment, fire and passion."
John D. Caputo, On Religion, Routledge New York 2001.
"He arrives - Your beauty - the beauty of the world. Your love - the beating of the universe, the loving rhythm of nature, time in harmony with the sun. In you , I behold its radiance. In you, I savour its power, I bathe in its warmth. At times, the eternal joins with the instant. We are present to each other, but between us remains eternity, while we continue to grow. How do we unite these two times?... How do I return to you?... How do I call the going beyond?... We can remain together if you do not become entirely perceptible to me, if a part of you stays in the night. Already, beauty has created a distance: a veil over us... Only love consents to a night in which I will never know you. Between those who love each other, there is a veil... I become because I recognise myself in you... With you, the world remains fluid... How do I remain in love - cultivating sun and grace?... To be silent to allow you to speak, to give birth to you. And to us, as well. To listen to the other's love."
Luce Irigaray, Prologue - To Be Two, The Athlone Press, 2000.
"Freud also had a concept of love in his system, but it was, throughout, entwined with his theory of the sexual instinct... Civilisation and Its Discontents explored the possibilities and dangers of love as a road to happiness. He dismissed the oceanic feeling or pleasurable sense of oneness - the possibility of love between a mother and baby and, by extension, between a man and a woman - as infantile and unrealistic. Such love was dangerous, Freud wrote, because, when one fell into it, the boundaries of one's ego could melt away, a condition he associated with psychosis. Love was also threatening because it entailed giving up control, which left one extremely vulnerable: 'We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love.' He counterposed this intensely pleasurable, but dangerous, state of love with its tempered, socialized form: 'sublimated' or 'aim-inhibited libido,' the way to reason and science."
Louis Breger, Freud - Darkness in the Midst of Vision, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
"There’s what Freud called Liebesbedingung, the condition for love, the cause of desire. It’s a particular trait – or a set of traits – that have a decisive function in a person for the choice of the loved one. This totally escapes the neurosciences, because it’s unique to each person, it’s down to their singular, intimate history. Traits which are sometimes minute are at play. For instance, Freud singled out in one of his patients a cause of desire that was a shine on a woman’s nose! The reality of the unconscious outstrips fiction. You can’t imagine how much in human life is founded, especially where love is concerned, on little things, on pinheads, on ‘divine details’. It’s true that’s it’s above all in men that you find causes of desire like that, which are like fetishes whose presence is indispensable to spark off the love process… People in love are in fact condemned to go on learning the other’s language indefinitely, groping around, seeking out the keys – keys that are always revocable. Love is a labyrinth of misunderstandings whose way out doesn’t exist."
Jacques-Alain Miller, On Love. Lacan, October, 2008.
"Whatever is, is experienced in relation to its possible non-being. This alone makes it fully a possession and, thus petrified, something functional that can be exchanged for other, equivalent possessions. Once wholly a possession, the loved person is no longer really looked at. Abstraction in love is the complement of exclusiveness, which manifests itself deceptively as the opposite of abstract, a clinging to this one unique being. But such a possessiveness loses its hold on its object precisely through turning it into an object, and forfeits the person whom it debases to 'mine.' If people were no longer possessions, they could no longer be exchanged. True affection would be one that speaks specifically to the other, and becomes attached to beloved features and not to the idol of personality, the reflected image of possession. The specific is not exclusive: it lacks the aspiration to totality. But in another sense it is exclusive, nevertheless: the experience indissolubly bound up with it does not, indeed, forbid replacement, but by its very essence precludes it."
Theodor W. Adorno, Morality and the temporal sequence, 1944; Minima Moralia, 1951.
Martin Heidegger, The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics; Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, 1957.
"Freud had been smoking since the age of twenty-four, beginning with cigarettes and moving quickly on to cigars. His father had been a heavy smoker, hanging on to the habit through to his eighty-first year, Freud's age when he gave his stock to Alexander. At the height of him commitment to tobacco, Freud was not only a user but a committed advocate... Freud called smoking 'a protection and a weapon in the combat of life,' and he was devoted to it for the great balance of his existence. When in 1923, he discovered a cancerous growth on his jaw and palate, he refused for some time from letting his doctors know because he was aware that they would tell him that he had to give up his cigars... Cigar smoking gave Freud, who, despite an early fling with cocaine, almost never touched other drugs, the combination of energy and tranquillity that he needed in order to write. Smoking calmed his nerves and let him focus his attention onto the field of enquiry at hand. His cigar unified him... Freud's hunger for cigars was about as strong as any human hunger could be, and he himself was in control of satisfying it... Even after he gave his cigars to Alex, Freud would continue to smoke. If food was the stuff of life, Lebensmittel, then cigars were to Freud 'Arbeitsmittel,' the 'stuff of work,' and Freud, by his own estimation, still had a good deal of work to do."
Mark Edmundson, The Death of Sigmund Freud; The Legacy of His Last Days, Bloomsbury, 2007.
"Love is the passion of facticity in which man bears this nonbelonging and darkness, appropriating (adsuefacit) them while guarding them as such. Love is thus not, as the dialectic of desire suggests, the affirmation of the self in the negation of the loved object, it is, instead, the passion and exposition of facticity itself and of the irreducible impropriety of beings. In love, the lover and beloved come to light in their concealment, in an eternal facticity beyond Being... Just as in Ereignis, the appropriation of the improper signifies the end of both history of Being and of the history of epochal sendings, so in love the dialectic of the proper and the improper reaches its end... Lovers bear the impropriety of love to the end and so that the proper can emerge as the appropriation of the free incapacity that passion brings to its end. Lovers go to the limit of the improper in a mad and demonic promiscuity; they dwell in carnality and amorous discourse, in forever-new regions of impropriety and facticity, to the point of revealing their essential abyss. Human beings do not originally dwell in the proper; yet they do not (according to the facile suggestion of contemporary nihilism) inhabit the improper and the ungrounded. Rather, human beings are those who fall properly in love with the improper, who - unique among living beings - are capable of their own incapacity.”
Giorgio Agamben, The Passion of Facticity; Potentiality, Stanford University Press, 1999.
"What is beautiful in the relation to the other, what moves us, what overwhelms us the most - that is love - is when we glimpse a part of what is secret to him or her, what is hidden, that the other does not see; as if there were a window by which we see a certain heart beating... We know, for example where the other's vulnerable heart is situated; and we do not touch it; we leave intact. This is love... There are things we do not understand because we could never reproduce them: behaviours, decisions that seem foreign to us. This is also love... At the end of the path of attention, of reception, which is not interrupted but which continues into what little by little becomes the opposite of comprehension. Loving not knowing. Loving: not knowing... it's easy to love ... once you love! You have to get there first!.. I think we probably love more easily than we write - which does not mean that we love well. But we have more numerous experiences of love than writing. Because we cannot not love when we live. It is our motivating force. That is what living is: the search for love."
Hélène Cixous, Alterity: Being Human; French Women Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.
"Most histories of this period tend to concentrate on the atrocities that were committed against the Jewish nation and others unfortunately enough to be regarded as 'untermenschen', (sub-human). My story is very different and it is only now, in these more enlightened, tolerant times that I feel able to recount my experiences without fear of condemnation. Although I hated our oppressors with the same intensity as everyone else, my survival was entirely due to love. This love came from a jewish family who took me in and cared for me, a Polish woman and her son and a senior SS Officer who fell in love with me. I am neither proud of this story nor ashamed of my conduct. I did what I had to do in the circumstances and, like so mant others, used everything at my disposal to survive. Where others had unlimited financial resources to buy favours and delay the inevitable, all I had was a most unusual face and body... Additionally, I must make it clear that I was not abused in any way or seduced against my will; quite the reverse since I was frequently the instigator!!"
Janni Kowalski, Love Sets You Free (Liebe Macht Frei) - The Biography of Janni Kowalski, Jeremy Harder, Old Forge Publishing, 2004.
"Consequently, Freud's text raises the possibility for thinking about mourning as an affirmative and loving internalization of the lost other... Identification with the lost other establishes the condition for founding the self and, hence constituting internal divisions within the psyche... But in recognizing that there can be no final serverance of attachments without dissolving the ego, Freud’s late theory suggests a different alternative: the mourning subject may affirm the endurance of ambivalent bonds to those loved and lost others as a condition of its own existence. Freud’s work counsels us, then, to relinquish the wish for a strict identity unencumbered by the claims of the lost other or the past. In so doing, we realize the possibility of mourning beyond melancholia, a response to loss that refuses the self-punishment entailed in blaming the lost one for our own contingency and that enables us to live in light of our losses. Freud’s work on mourning helps us, finally, to establish an intimate, indeed ethical, relation between past and future as we embark on the present work of endless mourning."
Tammy Clewell, Mourning Beyond Melancholia: Freud's Psychoanlysis of Loss; Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2004.
"If I adopt the attitude of love, according to Sartre, I try to gain access to 'the secret of what I am' which the other possessed about me in my capacity as object. For this to be possible, the other must continue to appear as a transcendence. One thus tries to 'assimilate' the other as seeing and recognizes oneself as seen, as object... The one who wishes to be loved asks the other to decide freely to love only him or her. The Lover 'is and consents to be an object. But on the other hand, he wants to be the object in which the Other's freedom consents to lose itself' (BN: 367, EN: 435). But the loved can only be lover when he meets the other as subject, not object... Each lover requires that the other party, as a subject, shall love him or her. This cannot be simultaneously. The ideal of love is 'a fusion of consciousness in which each of them would preserve his otherness in order to found the other' (BN: 376, EH: 444). To Sartre, however, this is impossible because each of the two consciousnesses is separated by its internal negations. The one cannot unite with the other without the alterity of the other being abolished."
Eva Lundgren-Gothlin, The Love-Seeking Object; Sex & Existence, The Athlone Press, 1996.
"Even before the death of the other, the inscription in me of her or his mortality constitutes me. I mourn therefore I am. I am - dead from the death of the other, my relation to myself is first of all plunged into mourning, a mourning that is moreover impossible. this is what I also call the ex-appropriation, the appropriation caught in a double bind: I must and must not take the other into myself; mourning is an unfaithful fidelity if it succeeds in interiorizing the other ideally in me, that is, in not respecting his or her infinite exteriority... If death comes to the other and comes to us through the other, then the friend no longer exists except in us, between us...being-for-death... But I can have the experience of 'my own death' by relating to myself only in the impossible experience, the experience of the impossible mourning at the death of the other. It is because I 'know' that the other is mortal that I try to keep him or her in me, in memory... being-for-death is always mediated... in the experience or in the 'non-experienceable' structure of impossible mourning. Mourning would be more originary than my being for death."
Jacques Derrida, Interview with Maurizio Ferraris, Aut Aut 235, January-February 1990.
"Mourning must be impossible. We cannot assume that we can merely resurrect or interiorize 'within us the image, idol, or ideal of the other who is dead'. Nor can we assume that 'the other who is dead' is simply outside of us and that we are 'a subjectivity that is closed upon itself or even identical to itself'. Mourning is impossible, and for us most of all. The 'race of the other', the other who has died and that remains other, is at once inside and outside of us, marking a gap that moves in 'us', as 'us' - the living who sign our name. Mourning has always already begun. It begins with the name, with naming and with writing the date, with dating: Jacques Derrida 15 July 1930 - 8-9 October 2004... How does one respond to the death of Jacques Derrida? How does one mourn for Derrida, who warned of the dangers of mourning (as idealization and interiorization), while insisting that mourning is both unavoidable and impossible? The gap that the death of Jacques Derrida has let behind is open, gaping; it cannot be closed. One can perhaps only respond by tracing the gaps (écarts, béances, décalages), the histories of the gap, in Derrida's work."
Sean Gaston, The Impossible Mourning of Jacques Derrida, Continuum, 2006.
"While desire focuses on the other, always in a somewhat fetishist[ic] manner, on particular objects, like breasts, buttocks and cock, love focuses on the very being of the other, on the other as it has erupted, fully armed with its being, into my life that is consequently disrupted and re-fashioned. The absolute contingency of the encounter takes on the appearance of destiny. The declaration of love marks the transition from chance to destiny and that's why it is so perilous and so burdened with a kind of horrifying stage fright. In love, fidelity signifies this extended victory: the randomness of an encounter defeated day after day through the invention of what will endure. Love is always the possibility of being present at the birth of the world. The birth of a child, if born from within love, is yet another example of this possibility. To love is to struggle, beyond solitude, with everything in the world that can animate existence. This world where I see for myself the fount of happiness my being with someone else brings. 'I love you' becomes: in this world there is this fount you are for my life. In the water from this fount, I see our bliss, yours first."
Alain Badiou, In Praise of Love, Serpent's Tail, 2012.
"Say I am passionately attached, in love, or whatever, to another human being and I declare my love, my passion for him or her. There is always something shocking, violent in it. This may sound like a joke, but it isn't - you cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms. There is a moment of violence, when you say: 'I love you, I want you.' In no way can you bypass this violent aspect... For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes. When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children."
Slavoj Zizek, 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other', Spiked, 15 November, 2001.
"Heidegger's nearness is a romantic allegory, and it particularly allegorizes an attraction for a dangerous lover, as described in many formula romances. Flight from the beloved and the evasion of immanent love describes the basic plot structure of the dangerous lover formula. Immanent love defines the complete presence of both lovers, as equally confessed lovers, beloved together in the same place and at the same time. All meaning is finally immanent and this is the final aim, or the climax and ending of the book. This full presence of love states the love story's meaning; everything in the narrative means this, and this is all it means. Clearly love's completion defines romance, but with the dangerous lover formula, love's presence constitutes the end of the story; all events tend toward this culmination. Yet 'to tend toward' here, means both to flee, to cover over and to always be in a movement toward. Again we see Heidegger's nearness here - the moving closer which causes familiar nearness to withdraw. The structure of this proposition - the fleeing movement of love - lies in withheld secrets, postponements, misunderstandings, and evasion."
Deborah Lutz, Heidegger, the Erotics of Ontology, and the Mass-Market Romance, Comparative Cultural Studies and Popular Culture, 2003.
"One must learn to love.— This is what happens to us in music: first one has to learn to hear a figure and melody at all, to detect and distinguish it, to isolate it and delimit it as a separate life; then it requires some exertion and good will to tolerate it in spite of its strangeness, to be patient with its appearance and expression, and kind hearted about its oddity:—finally there comes a moment when we are used to it, when we wait for it, when we sense that we should miss it if it were missing: and now it continues to compel and enchant us relentlessly until we have become its humble and enraptured lovers who desire nothing better from the world than it and only it.— But that is what happens to us not only in music: that is how we have learned to love all things that we now love. In the end we are always rewarded for our good will, our patience, fair mindedness, and gentleness with what is strange; gradually, it sheds its veil and turns out to be a new and indescribable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. Even those who love themselves will have learned it in this way: for there is no other way. Love, too, has to be learned."
Friedrich Nietzche, The Gay Science, Book IV, 1882.
"Freud observed, with disarming honesty, that, 'I cannot discover this oceanic feeling in myself. It is not easy to deal scientifically with feelings.'... I want to argue that this 'archaic' feeling, which once, in Freud's own words, 'embraced the universe', this guardian awareness of our interconnectedness with all other beings and our grounding in the wholeness of Being, and which Freud himself, under pressure, did finally recognize, is of the most decisive importance for our present critical task...'Love', says Freud, 'threatens to obliterate the boundaries between ego and object'. Is this challenge to the boundaries inherently, or necessarily, pathological? Why must love be understood (only) as a 'threat'? It seems to me that, if our age is indeed threatened by the continued domination of the subject-object structure, what is an historical transformation of this structure through the retrieval and redemption of what Freud is calling 'love': the experience of a unifying unity which grounds all the structural formations of our perception, and in the 'play' of which, as Fink phrases it, the difference between 'consciousness' and its 'object' opens out the lighting of Being."
David Michael Levin, The Opening of Vision, Routledge, 1988.
"As the place onto which lack is projected, and through which it is simultaneously disavowed, woman is a 'symptom' for the man. Defined as such, reduced to being nothing other than this fantasmic place, the woman does not exist. Lacan's statement 'The woman does not exist' is, therefore, the corollary of his accusation, or charge, against sexual fantasy. It means, not that woman does not exist, but that her staus as an absolute category and guarantor fantasy (exactly The woman) is false (The) [crossed through]. Lacan sees courtly love as the elevation of the woman into the place where her absence or inaccessibility stands in for the male lack ('For the man, whose lady was entirely, in the most servile sense of the term, his female subject, courtly love is the only way of coming off elegantly from the absence of sexual relation.'), just as he sees her denigration as the precondition for man's belief in his own soul ('For the soul to come into being, she, the woman, is differentiated from it... called woman and defamed'). In relation to man, woman comes to stand for both difference and loss: 'On the one hand, the woman becomes, or is produced, precisely as what he is not...' For Lacan, men and women are only ever in language..."
Jacqueline Rose, Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and he École Freudienne, Verso, 1986.
“One can be loved while remaining ignorant of that very thing - that one is loved - and in this respect remain as though confined to secrecy. It could be said that such a secret is never revealed. But one cannot love, and one must not love, in such a state of ignorance of friendship itself... One loves only by declaring that one loves... Being loved - what does that mean? Nothing, perhaps - nothing in any case of friendship itself in which the loved one, as such, has nothing to know, sometimes nothing to do. Being loved therefore remains - with regard to friendship itself, and therefore with regard to the friend - an accident... One can love being loved, but loving will always be more, better and something other than being loved. One can love to be loved - or to be lovable - but one must first know how to love, and know what loving means by loving. The structure of the first must remain what it is, heterogeneous to that of the other, and that structure, that of loving for the lover, will always - as Aristotle tells us, in sum - be preferable to being-loved, as acting is preferable to suffering, act to potentiality, essence to accident, knowledge to non-knowledge.”
Jacques Derrida, Obligarchies: Naming, Enumerating, Counting; The Politics of Friendship, Verso, 2005.
“I'd known lots of people before but, even though I was over forty when I met Peter, I'd never really fallen in love with anyone until then. What Peter really liked was young boys. He was actually younger than me, but he didn't seem to realize it. It was a kind of mistake that he went with me at all. Of course, it was a most total disaster from the start. Being in love in that extreme way - being totally, physically obsessed by someone - is like having some dreadful disease. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. He was marvellous-looking, you see. He had this extraordinary physique - even his calves were beautiful. And he could be wonderful company. He played the piano marvellously and he had a real kind of natural wit, coming up with one amusing remark after another, just like that - unlike those dreadful bores who plan from morning to night what they're going to say... I must say most of the time Peter was terribly neurotic, even hysterical....Of course, he hated my painting right from the beginning and he said, 'You can leave your paintings and come and live with me.' And I said: 'What does living with you mean?' And he said: 'Well, you could live in a corner of my cottage on straw. You could sleep and shit there.' He wanted to have me chained to the wall... But he was so neurotic that living together would never have worked.”
Francis Bacon on Peter Lacy, Francis Bacon Anatomy of an Enigma, Michael Peppiatt, Westview Press, 1996.
“One sees that in Blanchot's first essay on René Char (1946) his anarchist poetics or poetics of the fragment is already clearly articulated... Char, or a lover of Char, might protest that the 'we' in his poem are lovers, not a Blanchot-like 'we' where, Joyce-like, no one is anything, that is, neither the one nor the other; to which Blanchot might reply that the world of lovers is a communauté désoeuvrée - or, more accurately, the relationship between lovers is more interval than unity. In his commentary of Marguerite Dumas's La maladie de la mort, Blanchot thinks of love as a scandal to ethics just in the sense that it is outside all bounds, a neutral relation, a relation of strangeness, possibly a 'return to the wilderness that does not even transgress prohibitions, given that it ignores them, or to the 'anogistic' [aorgique] ( Hölderlin) which unsettles any social relationship, just or unjust, and, contumacious to any third party, cannot be satisfied with a society of two where the reciprocity of the 'I-you' would reign, but prefers to invoke the original, precreational chaos, the night without end, the outside, the fundamental unhinging' (The Unavowable Community, 1988). So Blanchot, persisting in his allegory, might say: the night of the lovers is the other night...”
Gerald L. Bruns, Maurice Blanchot - The Refusal of Philosophy, John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
"There is nothing: basically – I mean it quite literally. Like ultimately – ultimately there are just some fragments, some vanishing things, if you look at the universe it is one big void, but then how do things emerge? – Here I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum-physics where, you know, the idea there is that universe is a void but a kind of a positively charged void and then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed and I like this idea spontaneously very much that the fact that its not just nothing – things are out there - it means something went terribly wrong: that what what we call creation is a kind of cosmic imbalance cosmic catastrophe that things exist by mistake and I am even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counter act this is to: assume the mistake and go to the end and we have a name for this: it’s called love. Isn’t love precisely this kind of cosmic imbalance? I was always disgusted with this notion of 'I love the world' – 'universal love' – I don’t like the world – I basically am somewhere in between: I hate the world or am indifferent towards it – but the whole of reality it's just it – it's stupid – it's out there: I don't care about it. Love for me is an extremely violent act. Love is not 'I love you all' – love means: I pick out something and it’s again this structure of imbalance: even if this something is just a small detail, a fragile, individual person, I say: I love you more than anything else: in this quite formal sense love is evil."
Slavoj Žižek, Love is Evil, You Tube, 2007.
“The 'unknown' is not the negative limit of a knowledge. this non-knowledge is the element of friendship or hospitality for the transcendence of the strange, the infinite distance of the other. 'Unknown' is also the word chosen by Maurice Blanchot for the title of an essay, Knowledge of the Unknown, which he devoted to the one who had been, from the time of their meeting in Strasbourg in 1923, a friend, the very friendship of the friend. For many among us, no doubt, certainly for myself, the absolute fidelity, the exemplary friendship of thought, the friendship between Maurice Blanchot and Emmanuel Levinas, was a grace, a gift; it remains a benediction of our time and, for more reasons than one, a good fortune that is also a blessing for those who have had the great privilege of being the friend of either of them. In order to hear once again today, right here, Blanchot speak for Levinas, and with Levinas, as I had the good fortune to do when in their company one day in 1968... If the relation to the other presupposes an infinite separation, an infinite interruption where the face appears, what happens, where and to whom does it happen, when another interruption comes at death to hollow out even more infinitely this first separation, a rending interruption at the heart if interruption itself?”
Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.
“The great debt I owe to Emmanuel Lévinas is, I believe, well known. He is today my oldest friend, the only one I feel entitled to address in the tu form. It is also known that we met at the University of Strasbourg in 1926, where so many great teachers made philosophy anything but mediocre for us. Was this encounter the result of chance? It could be said. But our friendship was neither hazardous nor fortuitous. Something profound drew us together. I won't say that this was already Judaism, but rather, in addition to his cheerfulness, a sort of solemn, noble way of envisaging life by investigating it without a trace of pedantry. At the same time, it is to him I owe my first encounter with Husserl, and even with Heidegger, whose lectures he had attended in a Germany already stirred up by perverse political impulses. We left Strasbourg for Paris at almost the same time, but although we never lost touch entirely, it took the misfortunes of a disastrous war for the ties of our friendship, which could be said to have slackened somewhat, to become firmer again, particularly since, while a prisoner of war (in France initially), he entrusted me, through what amounted to a secret request, with the task of watching over those dear to him, who were, alas, vulnerable to the perils of a heinous political system.”
Maurice Blanchot, letter to Salomon Malka, L' Arche, May 1988.
“How could one agree to speak of this friend? ... Everything we say tends to veil the one affirmation: that everything must fade and that we can remain loyal only so long as we watch over this fading movement, to which something in us that rejects all memory already belongs...What separates: what puts authentically in relation, the very abyss of relations in which lies, with simplicity, the agreement of friendly affirmation that is always maintained. We should not, by means of artifice, pretend to carry on a dialogue. What has turned away from us also turns us away from that part which was our presence, and we must learn that when speech subsides, it is not only this exigent speech that has ceased, it is the silence that it made possible and from which it returned along an insensible slope toward the anxiety of time. Undoubtedly we will still be able to follow the same paths, we can let images come, we can appeal to an absence that will imagine, by deceptive consolation, to be our own. We can, in a word, remember: without memory, without thought, it already struggles in the invisible where everything sinks back to indifference. This is thought's profound gift. It must accompany friendship into oblivion.”
Maurice Blanchot, On the Death of Georges Bataille; Friendship, Stanford University Press, 1997.
"Freud evoked this complicated, hard-to-imagine journey of the love object from outside to inside the mourner with a poetic, elusive phrase: 'The shadow of the object falls across the ego and obscures it.' It is a slow process, the detachment achieved only piece by piece, and in concluding the essay, Freud acknowledged that it remained a mystery to him why the process was so painful. Painful, but imperative... At the conclusion of On Transience, Freud said that mourning should spontaneously cease one day, freeing the energy it consumed for other pursuits. The living and the dead might arrive at an uneasy truce, merely out of exhaustion or, perhaps, out of the transformation of grief, creating something new in memory of the departed... Freud was asked in his old age what should be the goals of a healthy, vital life. He is reported to have replied, "Lieben und Arbeiten" - to love and to work. Love had earned a clear place in Freud's estimation. He had come to see in its many forms the source of all emotions, behaviours, and actions. It was the inescapable essence of humanity... Through mourning and the triumph of human creativity over loss, the mourner finds again what has been lost within himself. In learning to give himself over to the symphony of life and death, he rediscovers himself, and so realizes the potential inherent in all beings to love and work."
Matthew von Unwerth, Freud's Requiem - Mourning, Memory and the Invisible History of a Summer Walk, Continuum, 2006.
“By 'mood,' one needs to emphasize right away, Heidegger does not mean an inner, subjective feeling or psychological sentiment. Readers of Being and Time cannot be misled on this point, which is reiterated in the lecture course: 'mood' in Heidegger's usage is a kind of ontological tuning or attunement, the attunement of Dasein and being, or the mode in which being is revealed and concealed in Dasein... As a mode of attunement, mourning has a sober and almost serene quality; in Heidegger's words, it is not a psychological but a spiritual (or ontological) category... Moreover, mourning here does not signify a breach or simple farewell. As in the case of a loved one, the experience of the loss of gods actually nurtures and strengthens the bond of love and the desire for reunion. As Heidegger notes, 'Where the most beloved is gone, love remains - for else the other could not at all have gone [as the beloved]. Thus, mourning here is both acceptance of the loss, a refusal to cling, and a determined waiting for reconcilliation, an expectant readiness for the return of gods... One should mark this well: mourning - sacred mourning - as the central mood of Hölderlin's hymns and also Heidegger's entire lecture course. Mourning thus necessarily involves a transgression of traditional metaphysics (predicated on the juxtaposition of two separate 'worlds').”
Fred Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger, Cornell University Press, 1993.
"He looks at us. In us. He looks in us. This witness sees in us. And from now on more than ever...The one who looks at us in us - and for whom we are - is no longer; he is completely other, infinitely other, as he has always been, and death has more than ever entrusted him, given him over, distanced him, in this infinite alterity... We can get over our mourning of him only by getting over our mourning, by getting over, but ourselves, the mourning of ourselves, I mean the mourning of our autonomy, of everything that would make us the measure of ourselves... The gaze is his, and it will always remain his, infinitely; it comes from him singularly, from him alone, alone as always, more alone than ever, over there, outside, far away. Far away in us. In us, there where this power of the image comes to open the being-far-away... The one who looks at us in us - and for whom we are - is no longer; he is completely other, infinitely other, as he has always been, and death has more than ever entrusted him, given him over, distanced him, in this infinite alterity... We can get over our mourning of him only by getting over our mourning, by getting over, by ourselves, the mourning of ourselves, I mean the mourning of our autonomy, of everything that would make us the measure of ourselves...Why does one give and what can one give to a dead friend?... Why wait for death? Tell me why we wait for death."
Jacques Derrida, Louis Martin - By Force of Mourning; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.
"Love remains a relation with the Other that turns to need, and this need still presupposes the total, transcendent exteriority of the other, of the beloved. But love also goes beyond the beloved. This is why through the face filters the obscure light coming from beyond the face, from what is not yet, from a future never future enough, more remote than the possible... Love aims at the Other; it aims at him in his frailty... The movement of the lover before this frailty of femininity, neither pure compassion nor impassiveness, indulges in compassion, is absorbed in the complacence of the caress... Love does not simply lead, by a more detoured or more direct way, toward the Thou. It is bent in another direction than that wherein one encounters the Thou... If to love is to love the love the Beloved bears me, to love is also to love oneself in love, and thus return to oneself... Love accordingly does not represent a particular case of friendship. Love and friendship are not only felt differently; their correlative differs: friendship goes unto the Other; love seeks what does not have the structure of an existent, the infinitely future, which is to be engendered. I love fully only if the Other loves me, not because I need the recognition of the Other, but because my voluptuosity delights in his voluptuosity... If to love is to love the love of the Beloved bears me, to love is also to love oneself in love, and thus to return to oneself."
Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.
"Freinds and lovers, lusciously deformed. Flesh slipping, seized in the obscurity of love. Anceient panic-joy of bodies embattled, their contours blurred into one. A meaty frame coming down on the same, its just completed heave left hanging liked a shucked-off skin. Muscles succulently acquiesce. One head broken in a shriek of pleasure-pain, the other hard-death-masked in deaire. Pressed deep into the milky sheets, quickly, urgently, seeking the inner core of self and other. Or humped in a field, figure slipping over figure, their edges woven with green lits from the field. Lover burrowed into and eclipsing lover. The instant lived over again. Love here in the grass room, the blades sprouting between the heavy velvet drapes. A luxury arena - bedroom field, best of both - with the bare canvas earth showing in between. Friends and lovers, memory of embraces. Pinned to a mattress or strung up over their shadows... Bodies brought to an extreme, held at the last point of longing, the shudder before collapse. Everything leading up to this one instant - passion point, death point - then falling away. Here it comes - hold it there - it's gone. Triptych. And wait to begin again. Manflesh with manflesh. The turn of the face beneath, opened in your own despair. His scream, himself slipped out of himself. Thick-knit flesh falling on the bone. Lover come back. Picture and meat. Last look before dissolve: the smile-snarl sliding off to dry into dust... Opening old wounds. Old loves, past friends. Renewing the pain. He into them, they, he, into us."
Michael Peppiatt, In Francis Bacon's Studio, Art International No. 8, Autumn, 1989.
“In Love we pursue the Other, only to find that he or she is [existentially] inaccessible, while in meditation we pursue the self, only to find it equally ineffable... There is more to desire than just suffering. There is a yearning in desire that is as spiritual as it is sensual. Even when it degenerates into addiction, there is something salvageable from the original impulse that can only be described as sacred. Something in the person wants to be free, and it seeks its freedom any way it can. This is one of the major insights to have precipitated out of my study of the psychologies of East and West. There is a drive for transcendence that is implicit in even the most sensual of desires. While there are certainly currents in both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions that dismiss or denigrate desire, encouraging us to forsake it through renunciation or sublimation, there is another, more controversial, alternative that I have found necessary in helping my patients. Known in the East as the tantric, or 'left-handed,' path, desire, in this view, is a vehicle for personal transformation. It is a yoga in its own right. Rather than treating it as the cause of suffering, desire is embraced as a valuable and precious resource, an emotion that, if harnessed correctly, can awaken and liberate the mind. In this way of thinking, desire is the human response to the discontent described in the Buddha’s First Noble Truth. It is the energy that strives for transcendence but, if it is to truly accomplish its goals, the seeker must learn to relate to it differently.”
Mark Epstein, Open to Desire - Embracing a Lust for Life: Insights from Buddhism and Psychotherapy, Gotham Books, 2004.
“To have a friend: to keep him. To follow him with your eyes. Still to see him when he is no longer there and to try to know, listen to him when you know that you will see him no longer - and that is to cry. To have a friend, to look at him, to follow him with your eyes, to admire him in friendship, is to no in a more intense way, already injured, always insistent, and more and more unforgettable, that one of the two of you will inevitably see the other die. One of us, each says to himself, the day will come when one of the two of us will see himself no longer seeing the other and so will carry the other within him a while longer, his eyes following without seeing, the world suspended by some unique tear, each time unique, through which everything from then on, through which the world itself - and this day will come - will come to be reflected quivering, reflecting disappearance itself: the world, the whole world, the world itself, for death takes from us not only some particular life within the world, some moment that belongs to us, but, each time, without limit, someone through whom the world, and first of all our own world, will have opened up in a both finite and infinite - mortally infinite - way... One should not develop a taste for mourning, and yet mourn we must. We must, but we must not like it - mourning, that is, mourning itself, if such a thing exists: not to like or to love through one's own tear but only through the other, and every tear is from the other, the friend, the living, as long as we ourselves are living, reminding us, in holding life, to hold on to it.
Jacques Derrida, Jean-Marie Benoist - The Taste of Tears; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.
"What dawns on those who are embarrassed or spurned, illuminates as harshly as the violent pain which wracks the body. They recognize, that in the innermost core of deluded love, which knows nothing of this and may know nothing, lives the demand of what is undeluded. They have been wronged; they derive their claim of justice from this and must at the same time reject it, for what they wish, can only come out of freedom. In such urgent necessity, those who are rejected become human beings. Just as love inalienably betrays the generality to the particular, by which alone the generality is honoured, so too does the generality now turn fatally against love, as the autonomy of those who are nearest. Precisely the rejection, by which the generality asserts itself, appears to the individual [Individuum] as being excluded from the generality; whoever loses love, feels deserted by all, which is why they despise consolation. In the senselessness of the withdrawal they come to feel what is untrue of all merely individual fulfillment. Thereby however they awaken to the paradoxical consciousness of the generality: of the inalienable and unimpeachable human right, to be loved by the beloved. With their petition, founded on no title or claim, they appeal to an unknown court, which out of mercy accords to them what belongs to them and yet does not belong to them. The secret of justice in love is the sublation of rights, to which love points with speechless gestures. “So must love, deceived /silly yet everywhere be.” [lines by Hölderlin from Tränen, 'Tears']."
Theodor W. Adorno, Golden Gate; Minima Moralia, 1945/47.
"Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling. I say the strongest emotion, because I am satisfied the ideas of pain are much more powerful than those which enter on the part of pleasure. Without all doubt, the torments which we may be made to suffer, are much greater in their effect on the body and mind, than any pleasures which the most learned voluptuary could suggest, or than the liveliest imagination, and the most sound and exquisitely sensible body could enjoy. Nay I am in great doubt, whether any man could be found, who would earn a life of the most perfect satisfaction, at the price of ending it in the torments, which justice inflicted in a few hours on the late unfortunate regicide in France. But as pain is stronger in its operation than pleasure, so death is in general a much more affecting idea than pain; because there are very few pains, however exquisite, which are not preferred to death; nay, what generally makes pain itself, if I may say so, more painful, is, that it is considered as an emissary of this king of terrors. When danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible; but at certain distances, and with certain modifications, they may be, and they are delightful, as we every day experience. The cause of this I shall endeavour to investigate hereafter."
Edmund Burke, Of the Sublime; A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin Of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, 1757.
“The question presses: where is the romance in philosophy? Is there a philosophical erotic? The romance of reading philosophy is a truth rarely acknowledged. To be a student of philosophy is to desire to master a difficult philosophical text, to feel the onanistic ache of penetrating into a vast realm of ideas, the thrilling vibration of the opening into a manifold metaphysic. In fact the motivation for metaphysical thinking itself often begins with the desire for a teacher, a master, and the mind consumed by the ideas of others which, at least for a time, seem to expand the self and the mind, almost to the point of an erotic annihilation. Because philosophical truth claims ostensibly to apply to everyone, the reader of philosophy participates in a destruction of the self, reaching the mind into a place of universal objectivity, such that the world and all those in it can be written and spoken about in an enraptured unity. Heideggerian Dasein is the immolated subject, ravished of singularity for metaphysical thinking. As Jean-Luc Nancy points out, the Greek for 'philo' means 'love of' or 'beloved,' and 'sophy' is 'wisdom' or 'thinking'. Hence philosophy is the love of thinking: philosophy begins with love. Romance and philosophy share this origin, this original impetus for thinking, discourse, and writing, yet romance takes the more radical position, perhaps an amorous specificity within the more generic originary movement: romance is the love of love. Beginning and ending with love, meaning love at every moment, romance saturates meaning with this excessive generosity of desire.”
Deborah Lutz, Heidegger, the Erotics of Ontology, and the Mass-Market Romance, Comparative Cultural Studies and Popular Culture, 2003.
“Abstractions are vitally necessary insubstantial components of the ideative meaning of all intentional utterances, but are not themselves a 'part' or 'property' of the object encountered in perception, i. e., 'LOVE' is not a 'part' or 'property' of the lover, but reflects the manner or the way the generality of lovers exist whilst they are in a state of loving - or [put another way] the state of loving in which they exist whilst they feel emotions of love or act out loving behaviour...We are habituated to an awareness that we have never in the past and will never in the future confront the irreal object 'LOVE' anywhere in our experience. We are aware that an irreal 'object' cannot exist, for that which is not really an object cannot be a real-world existing entity. WE know that to find 'LOVE' we must find an actual real flesh and blood person to love or to love us, for love is a state or activity of human beings, and if we exclude human beings as possible ultimate enactors or enablers of these states or activities, we will fail to trace, identify and perhaps experience the actual originative or seminal denotata which gave rise to the abstraction in the first place - which is the loving states and activities of human beings. All abstractions are ultimately reducible to entities. Heidegger could never grasp this fact, but rather reified the semantic structures of these 'irreal objects' [which inhere in the phenomena and give them their communicative sense.] into quasi-entitic independent actualities... In many respects Heidegger's phenomenology can be described as a preoccupation with the irreal or unreal, in that what he seems to be interested in is not so much the actuality of entities, but the factuality of phenomena.”
Jud Evans, Heidegger's Ontological Confusion, Athenaeum Reading Room, 2007.
“It is that dimension of lack which is inaugurated in you by the entry into language and culture - an entry whose price is that you will always be lacking the object. A lack which for Lacan - through the category of the petit-object a - is not just an object of loss - it is what Lacan calls the cause of desire. The fort/da game then played by the infant is - as it were - a kind of heroic but entirely fruitless commentary on the movement backwards and forwards but in which the lost object can never return - in which in so I master anything I master the reel and not the object which the reel was supposed to stands for. If seems that we have strayed some way from the question of damage it is to point out that when we consider the question of damage to the subject at least in this first form of shock we are having to expose a whole kind of region of trauma - of its relation to representation - of its relation to loss - which actually determine - although quite unconsciously - the actual mechanisms of trauma - of course people are traumatised - what of course is required is a certain rebuilding of the ego which will be able to tolerate what is perhaps the most intolerable fact about a trauma and it is this: that you will never ever know what it was. The capacity of humans to withstand the lack of satisfaction of such a question requires an enormous amount of psychic work: to know I will never know. All pseudo accounts of traumas are always precisely leaping there with another new - although they are always the same - answer as to what it really was - what happened - but the structure of trauma is precisely that it is the unrepresentable and the damage is a consequence of unrepresentability.”
Mark Cousins, Trauma & Loss - Damage, Architectural Association, 27.10.1995.
"We may find the clue in one of the so-called ideal standards of civilized society. It runs: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' It is world-renowned, undoubtedly older than Christianity which parades it as its proudest profession, yet certainly not very old; in historical times men still knew nothing of it. We will adopt a naive attitude towards it, as if we were meeting it for the first time. Thereupon we find ourselves unable to suppress a feeling of astonishment, as at something unnatural. Why should we do this? What good is it to us? Above all, how can we do such a thing? How could it possibly be done? My love seems to me a valuable thing that I have no right, to throw away without reflection. It imposes obligations oil me which I must be prepared to make sacrifices to fulfil. If I love someone, he must be worthy of it in some way or other... He will be worthy of it if he is so like me in important respects that I can love myself in him; worthy of it if he is so much more perfect than I that I can love my ideal of myself in him; I must love him if he is the son of my friend, since the pain my friend would feel if anything untoward happened to him would be my pain - I should have to share it. But if he is a stranger to me and cannot attract me by any value he has in himself or any significance he may have already acquired in my emotional life, it will be hard for me to love him. I shall even be doing wrong if I do, for my love is valued as a privilege by all those belonging to me; it is an injustice to them if I put a stranger on a level with them. But if I am to love him (with that kind of universal love) simply because he, too, is a denizen of the earth, like an insect or an earthworm or a grass-snake, then I fear that but a small modicum of love will fall to his lot and it would be impossible for me to give him as much as by all the laws of reason I am entitled to retain for myself."
Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, 1929.
“OF all the tragedies of the Holocaust, that of the German Jews has to have been the most intimate. Auschwitz didn't just demonstrate the ease with which their entire community could be reduced to household products; it turned their very identity into a contradiction in terms. It was the ultimate rebuff to what Walter Benjamin once called the German Jew's 'unrequited love' for Germany. This exquisitely personal sense of loss, in any case, is the explanation of choice for scholars struggling to understand how Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger - the German Jewish debunker of totalitarianism and the Nazi philosopher - who were lovers before the war, could have become friends again after... BUT philosophers are also fascinated by the way Arendt used and transformed the tenets of Heideggerian existentialism, a system of thought undergirding much of post-modernist theory. 'People are ashamed to owe anything to Heidegger - and Hannah Arendt is the easy way out,' the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut says. Not, he hastens to add, because she was a less sophisticated thinker, but because she was a writer of uncommon decency and lucidity. Indeed, it may be the startling immediacy of Arendt's voice that has caused so many people to take the Heidegger question so personally. 'There is a concept that is very important in Hannah Arendt's thinking,' Mr. Finkielkraut continues. 'It's the concept of friendship. When you read her, you get the feeling of friendship, and that's one of the reasons she is so highly praised - because her philosophy is charming. It's as if when reading her, we were becoming friends with her. But friendship means trust. So if she decided to reconcile herself with Heidegger, I trust her. I want to know her reasons, but I have confidence in her.'...”
Judith Shulevitz, Arendt and Heidegger: An Affair to Forget?; The New York Times, October 1, 1995.
“That twilight space of what is called mourning: the mourning that follows death but also the mourning that is prepared and that we expect from the very beginning to follow upon death of those we love. Love or friendship would be nothing other than the passion, the endurance, and the patience of this work... Death, or rather mourning, the mourning of the absolute of force: that is the name, or one of the names, of this affect that unites force to the without-force, thereby relating the manifestation of force, as image, to the being without force of that which it manifests or lets be seen, right before our very eyes and according to our mourning... All work in general works at mourning. In and of itself. Even when it has the power to give birth, even and especially when it plans to bring something to light and let it be seen ... Whoever thus works at the work of mourning learns the impossible - and that mourning is interminable. Inconsolable... Right up until death - that is what whoever works at mourning knows, working at mourning as both their object and their resource, working at mourning as one would speak of a painter working at a painting... But let us return to Alberti: 'Painting,' he writes, 'contains an absolute divine force that not only makes absent men present, as friendship is said to do, but shows the dead to the living so that even after many centuries they may be recognized by them with great pleasure and with great admiration for the painter', In Alberti's description we see pleasure and admiration becoming inextricably linked to mourning, the force of the three affects increasing from their combination...”
Jacques Derrida, Louis Martin - By Force of Mourning; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.
“Six compelling principles, or characteristics, of Kleinian psychology hint at the metaphoric links between the complex of melancholy and the writing of art history that I wish to draw... Meaning of mourning: grief, imagined or real, over another's death later in life revives all sorts of infantile fears about inevitably losing the "good mother": "In normal mourning, as well as in abnormal mourning and in manic-depressive states [Klein's name for melancholy], the infantile depressive position is reactivated." Eros and Thanatos: the death drive that Freud had posited in Beyond the Pleasure Principle in 1920 is crucial for Klein as well. According to Julia Kristeva, she describes the death drive as "directly linked to the life drive, and not dissociated from it...." and asserts that it "manifests itself only through its relation to an object." Klein has noted, "In the deepest layers of the mind there is a response to this instinct in the form of fear of annihilation of life." Fear and hurt: "pining" is Klein's word of choice for "feelings of sorrow and concern for the loved objects, the fears of losing them and the longing to regain them...." "Pining for the lost loved object also implies dependence on it, but dependence of a kind which becomes an incentive to reparation and preservation of the object." Writing: the act of reparation, making whole once again, lies in the domain of the creative arts. "Pain, suffering, and reparation are at the foundation of creativity and sublimation." Indeed, writing (and painting) provide routes for "re-creat[ing] the harmony of the inner world and ... maintain[ing] tolerable relations with the outside.”
Michael Ann Holly, The Melancholy Art, The Art Bulletin, March 2007.
"It would be the greatest torture, if love really could contain such a self-contradiction, for love to require itself to keep hidden, to require its own unrecognisability. Would it not be as if a plant, sensitive to the vigour and blessing of life in itself, did not dare let it become known and kept the blessing to itself as if it were a curse — alas, as a secret in its inexplicable withering away. But this is not so at all. For even if a single, particular expression of love, a single impulse of the heart, were, out of love, forced back into painful concealment — this same life of love would find yet another expression for itself and still become recognizable by its fruits... For one is not to work in order that love becomes known by its fruits but to work to make love capable of being recognized by its fruits. In this endeavour one must watch himself so that this, the recognition of love, does not become more important to him than the one important thing: that it has fruits and therefore can be known...Therefore the last, the most blessed, the absolutely most convincing evidence of love remains: love itself, which is known and recognized by the love in another. Like is known only by like. Only he who abides in love can recognize love, and in the same way his love is to be known... What love does, it is; what it is, it does — at one and the same moment; simultaneously as it goes beyond itself (in an outward direction) it is in itself (in an inward direction), and simultaneously as it is in itself, it thereby goes beyond itself in such a way that this going beyond and this inward turning, this inward turning and this going beyond, are simultaneously one and the same."
Søren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, Princeton University Press, 1995.
"In the relation of the self (the same) to the Other, the Other is distant, he is the stranger; but if I reverse this relation, the Other relates to me as if I were the Other and thus causes me to take leave of my identity. Pressing until he crushes me, he withdraws me, by the pressure of the very near, from the privilege of the first person... Friendship is not a gift, or a promise; it is not a form of generosity. Rather, this incommensurable relation of one to the other is the outside drawing near in its separateness and inaccessibility. Desire, pure impure desire, is the call to bridge the distance, to die in common through separation. Death suddenly powerless, if friendship is the response that one can hear and make heard only by dying ceaselessly...The death of the Other: a double death, for the Other is death already, and weighs upon me like an obsession with death... If death is the real, and if the real is impossible, then we are approaching the thought of the impossibility of death... Dying means: you are dead already, in an immemorial past, of a death which was not yours, which you have thus neither known nor loved, but under the threat of which you believe you are called upon to live; you await it henceforth in the future, constructing a future to make it possible at last - possible as something that will take place and will belong to the realm of experience... Loss goes with writing... Learn to think with pain... To live without a lifetime - likewise, to die forsaken by death... To write elicits such enigmatic propositions... To write is no longer to situate death in the future - the death which is always already past... To write is to know that death has taken place even though it has not been experienced."
Maurice Blanchot, The Writing of the Disaster, University of Nebraska Press, 1995.
"The crypt is the live burial of the love object and its subsequent desires? the desires that cannot be expressed as such - inside of 'me' (Derrida, Fors xvi). In the intrapsychic topos of incorporation, a secret 'crypt' is erected to commemorate the refusal of not only the loss of the object, but also the associated desires from the introjection process, while simultaneously maintaining those desires through a spectral, performative paradox that never achieves synthesis (xvii). This differs from introjection as the object is not synthesized, but rather entombed whole inside of a dead space within the Ego. Derrida says that the 'dead object remains like a living dead abscessed in a specific spot in the ego' (The Ear of the Other 57). This live burial splits both Ego and Id...The crypt is a special kind of unconscious in the Ego of which the Ego is unconscious. This is only possible because of two conditions. 1). The crypt is already constructed. 'The Ego cannot quit the place where it had once been.' says Abraham and Torok, for it is the Ego that has already erected the Crypt, and now, the Ego 'can only withdraw into seclusion and construct a barrier separating it from the other half of the Ego.' The Ego refuses acknowledge the refusal of mourning, and so bars itself the consciousness of the crypt it has erected to receive the dead object. That means that 2). The Ego mimes proper introjection. Incorporation cannot be observed as a failure to show outward signs of mourning or love, for this process is mimed, performed. The Ego necessarily mimes proper mourning as part of the unacknowledgement, or unconsciousness of the crypt... That Heidegger and Freud encounter this ghosting and undecidability is evident, it is only now, however, that we can perhaps turn to an account that begins to account for all of us in the name of responsibility. I believe that I act normally but sometimes 'I' am not myself/ves, I may ask, am I not introjecting?... This secret might not even be 'my' secret, it could have been an inherited secret, an-other's secret, and to present it here as a gift (to you)."
Tobias C. van Veen, The Crypt and Incorporation, Quadrant Crossing, Spring 2003.
"Derrida was a great philosopher, and that simply means love was the motivation for everything he did... Derrida always said he only deconstructed those texts he loved... After 1989 Derrida began thematizing his work as revealing aporia, as the call to undergo the experience of the impossible. How he gets to aporia is a love story. Derrida's first (philosophical) love was for Husserl, and love for Levinas' love of the other and for Heidegger's love of difference led him to deconstruct Husserl's love of presence. His love for Paul de Man brought him to think of the gift, and mourning de Man's death brought him to think of de Man's love of aporia, to which his thought passes. Paul de Man's gift of love then for Derrida is the thought of aporia. Love is aporetic: it’s impossible, yet we’re called to experience this impossibility. First, let us use the aporia of the gift as our model, following the analyses in Politics of Friendship. Pure love is impossible, it cannot be experienced or be present, for any love that is acknowledged or recognized by lover or beloved would fall into an economy, a reciprocity of mutual benefit and hence cease to be love and become a mere friendship of utility, as Aristotle might say. That is, such a friendship is not really a loving friendship, an aimance, since it reduces the alterity of the friend to a mere element in a calculus of utility. Yet for the relation to the other to be a relation, there must be a moment of re-appropriation that reaches through a certain self-image, through a certain narcissism (Derrida 1995d, 199). But then we are back at the beginning once again: any relation to the other that passes through a living present is an appropriation, a domestication, which destroys alterity. But yet again, it must be my love, I must be the one committed to the other, the one who gives my love, for what is a love that is not my commitment? Another way to articulate the aporia of love would be to use the model of the aporia of decision: pure love is impossible because it cannot follow a program of previous love without the risk that the partners are simply in love with love and not with each other; but on the other hand, not just any relation deserves the name of love, and so it cannot not have a relation to past loves. So to wrap up, in following Derrida’s injunction to double affirmation: he loved wisdom, and he loved the love of wisdom, philosophy. And he gave us, through his love, a great philosophy, the only philosophy, that of love."
John Protevi, Derrida's Love of Philosophy: From Deconstruction to Aporia, Tulane University November 19, 2004.
"The object of desire involves as its shadow the constitutive fear of its loss... The reason why psychoanalysis is conventionally not thought to have a theory of love is commonly asserted that while psychoanalysis has a theory of naked desire - it has no theory of love - Some people hold up to this as a fundamental weakness of psychoanalysis - I would argue the case that in fact psychoanalysis does have a theory of love - it is called mourning: mourning is as it were not just the expression of grief in terms of the loss of the object but the always already feared loss which occurs simultaneously in gaining the object - in this sense the economy of desire is - if not the same - is shadowed by the economy of mourning - of grief - of loss... If we were to recognise that mourning is a general category in respect to the object of which death of the object is but an extreme, a limit case - it is not death as such which calls forth the expression of mourning but as it were that fear of the loss of the object which Freud once designated though said was in fact a property of women - though men perhaps on average have more savage defenses against the fear of the loss of love... It is the moment when Freud gets close to stitching any relation together - any constitutive relation - between sexuality, desire and loss... The Other here with a capital 'O' - the space or time into which I speak hoping to pick up what it wants of me - what it wants me to say - that wish which actually originates in alterity - the wish that I wish what you wish - the wish that I can say something to the Other that the Other wants to hear: the interrogation of what alterity is within myself so that I may begin to discover that Other - the Other which is as it were moving towards me - the Other has no meaning but the Other is where I situate what I am trying to mean - there where I fail to mean where I fail to say what I mean and each time that I begin to speak I am unable to say what I mean - is it because I don't know what I mean or is it because I can't speak it? It's there in the space of the Other that I have to try to find what I mean and how to say it... The entire moral significance of being a scholar is to be able to say to the Other: 'You exist and I do not fear you.' Now if that point is achieved that perhaps is what the meaning of kind of sleep - the rest - which is - we can perhaps kind of phenomenologically grasp - it is not the physical fact of death - but that of coming to rest together with the Other - come - let us sleep now."
Mark Cousins, The Pleasure Principal & the Death Instinct, Architectural Association, 28th June, 1996.
“We remember that philosophia in Greek means the love or friendship towards Sophia which is wisdom but also cleverness or skill or knowledge. So then we ask what is Philia - what is love or friendship or desire?... This love means an affirmative desire towards the Other - to respect the Other, to pay attention to the Other, not to destroy the otherness of the Other - and this is the preliminary affirmation, even if afterwards because of this love, you ask questions. There is some negativity in deconstruction. I wouldn't deny this. You have to criticise, to ask questions, to challenge and sometimes to oppose. What I have said is that in the final instance, deconstruction is not negative although negativity is no doubt at work. Now, in order to criticise, to negate, to deny, you have first to say 'yes'. When you address the Other, even if it is to oppose the Other, you make a sort of promise - that is, to address the Other as Other, not to reduce the otherness of the Other, and to take into account the singularity of the Other. That's an irreducible affirmation, its the original ethics if you want. So from that point of view, there is an ethics of deconstruction. Not in the usual sense, but there is an affirmation. You know, I often use a quote from Rosensweig or even from Levinas which says that the 'yes' is not a word like others, that even if you do not pronounce the word, there is a 'yes' implicit in every language, even if you multiply the 'no', there is a 'yes'. And this is even the case with Heidegger. You know Heidegger, for a long time, for years and years kept saying that thinking started with questioning, that questioning (fragen) is the dignity of thinking. And then one day, without contradicting this statement, he said 'yes, but there is something even more originary than questioning, than this piety of thinking,' and it is what he called zusage which means to acquiesce, to accept, to say "yes", to affirm. So this zusage is not only prior to questioning, but it is supposed by any questioning. To ask a question, you must first tell the Other that I am speaking to you. Even to oppose or challenge the Other, you must say 'at least I speak to you', 'I say yes to our being in common together'. So this is what I meant by love, this reaffirmation of the affirmation."
Jacques Derrida, On Love - An Interview With Nikhil Padgaonkar, 1997.
"Mourning over the loss of something that we have loved or admired seems so natural to the layman that he regards it as self-evident. But to psychologists mourning is a great riddle, one of those phenomena which cannot themselves be explained but to which other obscurities can be traced back. We possess, as it seems, a certain amount of capacity for love—what we call libido—which in the earliest stages of development is directed towards our own ego. Later, though still at a very early time, this libido is diverted from the ego on to objects, which are thus in a sense taken into our ego. If the objects are destroyed or if they are lost to us, our capacity for love (our libido) is once more liberated; and it can then either take other objects instead or can temporarily return to the ego. But why it is that this detachment of libido from its objects should be such a painful process is a mystery to us and we have not hitherto been able to frame any hypothesis to account for it. We only see that libido clings to its objects and will not renounce those that are lost even when a substitute lies ready to hand. Such then is mourning. We cannot be surprised that our libido, thus bereft of so many of its objects, has clung with all the greater intensity to what is left to us, that our love of our country, our affection for those nearest us and our pride in what is common to us have suddenly grown stronger. But have those other possessions, which we have now lost, really ceased to have any worth for us because they have proved so perishable and so unresistant? To many of us this seems to be so, but once more wrongly, in my view. I believe that those who think thus, and seem ready to make a permanent renunciation because what was precious has proved not to be lasting, are simply in a state of mourning for what is Lost. Mourning, as we know, however painful it may be comes to a spontaneous end. When it has renounced everything that has been lost, then it has consumed itself, and our libido is once more free (in so far as we are still young and active) to replace the lost objects by fresh ones equally or still more precious. It is to be hoped that the same will be true of the losses caused by this war. When once the mourning is over, it will be found that our high opinion of the riches of civilization has lost nothing from our discovery of their fragility. We shall build up again all that war has destroyed, and perhaps on firmer ground and more lastingly than before."
Sigmund Freud, On Transience, Das Land Goethes, November, 1915.
"We are all adolescents when we are enthralled by the absolute. Freud did not preoccupy himself with adolescents because he was himself a firm non-believer, the most irreligious human that ever existed. Faith implies a passion for the object relation: faith is potentially fundamentalist, as is the adolescent. Romeo and Juliette are excellent examples of this; I’ll come back to them later... I’ve already suggested that such an idealization of satisfaction due to an ideal object is elaborated and lived out as a revenge against the Oedipus complex and the parental couple. The ideal adolescent couple constructs itself in the place of the parents. In our culture, Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) Romeo et Juliet (1591 or 1594) is the paradigm of this fantastical construction. The mutual idealization that two adolescents share is experienced as a rejection of parental authority: Romeo and Juliet’s love for one another is all the more fueled by the fact that they defy the Montague and Capulet clans who hate one another and engage in a merciless feud. This young couple’s ideal is defiant and secret as all adolescent acts aspire to be. Moreover, the reciprocal idealization of the two lovers is perceived by all as a 'fatality'. What is fatality ? I suggest we consider the inevitability of this pleasure fulfilling attraction which we call 'fatality' to be precisely ideality’s permeation of drives and the domination of polymorphous perverse drives by one or more models proper to the ideal Ego. The result of this is that the adolescent believes that his or her pleasure is legitimate and justified. Several lines of these Shakespearean adolescents resonate with Marlowe : 'We cannot love or hate of our own free will. For our will is governed by fatality.' Nevertheless, as Shakespeare’s genius powerfully reveals, the belief that the Ideal Other inevitably exists is fragile and has a difficult time withstanding the assaults of the adolescent’s latent polymorphous perversity remaining from childhood. Here are two examples, which serve to prove this. Firstly, beneath the exalted discourse of the lovers one perceives sadomasochist desire. Juliette literally cuts up Romeo’s body at night fall: 'Come, gentle night/come, loving, black-brow’d night./ Give me my Romeo; and when he shall die/ Take him and cut him out in little stars … ' (III, II, 9-25) As for Romeo, his jealousy emerges as a fatal pleasure in stabbing his male rivals : 'O I am fortune’s fool! ', he cries out as he stabs Tybalt and Paris. In the end, this paradisiacal ideal of the couple turns out to be impossible. Romeo and Juliet die : in 1591 or in 1594 Shakespeare was no longer an adolescent. He had left his wife Anne Hathaway and his son, Hamnet, had just died. Romeo and Juliet, his ninth play in the second cycle of his lyrical masterpieces (along with A Midsummer Night’s Dream) reads as an adieu to the adolescent belief that the Ideal Object exists. "
Julia Kristeva, Romeo and Juliet : the ideal and impossible couple; Adolescence, a Syndrome of Ideality, The Psychoanalytic Review, Volume: 94, October 2007.
In the Beginning was the Love - and the Love was with Being - and the Love was Being. All Beings were Loved by Being and All Beings shone into Being through Loving And the Love beamed Being and Loved among Us and We beamed Loves Being - Being as of the only beaming from the Lover Full of Being and Time. In the Beginning Being loved all Beings from Its own Loving. But not all beings are beings to begin with without the Beam that Love lights Being to be. For few beings-beam for few beings-love. To be Being is to be the Beam that comes from the Love that Lights Being being there. Love is the Nothing of Being beaming for being to beam the Nothing there as the glow of geist as the light of love. Geist is Love - Love is Geist. There is no-being-without-light like there is no being-in-itself only being-in-its-love as being-in-its-beam for the love-being-to-beam for and through for being-love as a being-loved and as a being-in-love. The Nothing Beaming there is the Beaming of the Loving of Being. Being Beams to Being through Loving that beams-being open out onto other beings coming to light through the beam that beams being being-there to begin with as a love-of-being and a being-of-love. Not all beings beams as not all are beings to begin with but began as abeings as the-not-there that do not beam dasein by being born severed seins as acridine absent abeings as always all about at the same no-time the-not-there at all as absent abeings do not beam-being-bright do not come-to-light do not come-to-love.
Love originates as Hate as a Hate of our being I without another Other I that also Hates its I for our Unconscious is our Hate and our Conscious is our Love as our Unconscious Hates our Conscious I that conceals its Unconscious Hate for this Unconscious Hate originates our Conscious Love and so I love You because I hate you.
Abeings as all about being but never near being or there have a fear of love as a fear of being so never come to being so never came to love: they are the not there as aborted abeings: those that have not come to presence those that have not come to love those that have not come to being. Abeings fear becoming being because they fear becoming love becoming in love becoming in love with being with time for abeings fear the touch of being which is the touch of time bringing being to presence brining being to presence through love which is the being of time and the being of being-there: abeings are the not there being not there for love not there for love of being not there for love of time not there for abeings fear the touch of time as the being of love for abeings are never in-time with being for abeings are never in-being with time for abeings are always already too late for time for abeings are always already to late for being for abeings are always already too late for love. For abeings fear coming to time for abeings fear coming to being because abeings fear coming to love much more than anything at all and much more than the nothing at all.
Osis Osiris Portrait of M.V.E A.V.E March 2009
Abeings as aborted ahead and about are always already out of orbit out of being-there by not being-there by not being-in-being by not being-in-love by not being-in-time but being begins by being-there by being-in-time-there with being-in-love-there where being-in-love is being-in-time-together-there because to be in-time is to be in-love.
The Idea of the Infinite is the Being of Art whose Origin is Love where the Art of Being is Being the Infinite as Art Infinite for Art is Time.
What is Time? Love. Time is Love for Being comes to Love through Time and Being comes to Time through the Time of Love to be Being.
What is Love? Love is the Original and Authentic Relation to the Other. Being-in-Love is Being-in-Other for Love in Being is Being Other.
What is Death? Death is the Sign of Being done with Desire as Being Satisfied with Love and Being Loved and Having Loved Being There.
What is Being? Heidegger states Being is essentially nothing more than Itself - whereas for Sartre Being is no more than Nothing Itself.
Being is more than Itself for Being as Love is ahead of Being Itself - as Love Being is not Nothing in Itself but Being is The Nothing Itself.
For Nietzsche Being is Becoming the Eternal Return of the Same Time - whereas for Levinas Being is the il y a the no name of The Other.
What is True Being? True Being is True Love and True Love is a Sensation of Being There - and a Sensation of the Thereing is the Shining.
The Good is Being that Gives Love There for the Good is that which Gives Being the Time to Love Being There for the Love of Being There.
Why is there Loving and not rather Nothing? Because there is Being rather than Nothing as Being is not Nothing but Loving that is Being.
Being and Love are as One just as Being and Death are as One and Being cannot Die because Love cannot Die because Death cannot Die.
Loving to Presence is the Essence of Being and being Being is an ability to Love as Being comes to Presence only when Love comes to Be.
Presence to Loving as Being There is Attuned as an Aura and Abeings do not have an Aura for Abeings do not have a Loving to Glow Geist.
To Love is to Give what You have Got of what God has Not as God has not Got Love to Give as You have Love to Give so Give what you Got.
Love is One's Lack of the Other and Being in Love is Being in Other as One with Other where Two Ones become One One without the Other.
Being in Love is Being without the Lover being there in Love with the There being there without the Lover being there Being with the There.
There is the Nothing There of the Nothing Loving nothing there being there as the Nothing There loving there nothing as Loving the Nothing.
Love originates as Hate as Hate of I that Hates I and so I Love the other that also Hates its I which is why it also Loves Me for Love is Hate.
Portrait of M.V.E as Seth Alex Alien October 2007
What is Love? Love is our essential existential matter of being as existenz is being-in-love for 'I' come to Exist as existential matter through the matter of Love which is the matter that matters the most for Being as being as a Whole for Being matters for Love for Love matters for Being and which is all that matters but metaphysics has forgotten the matter of Love as the matter of Being as the matter for Being. In Love 'I' come to Exist as a being and 'I' can only exist if 'I' have come to Love as being-in-love or by being-loved for only Love brings Being to Exist at all. To Exist means to Loveforth for Being appears when Love appears but who appears today? but who exists today? To Exist is to Loveforth for only that which Lovesforth can come to Exist can come to be Being at all. What is the Truth of Being? Hidden. Love. Hidden Love. Love is still the Hidden Truth of Being and as such is still Withheld from Metaphysical Humanity but yet not Withheld from Philosophical Womanity. Metaphysics belongs to the Nature of Man whereas Philosophy belongs to the Nature of Woman. Philosophy will Overcome Metaphysics as Woman will Overcome Man for Metaphysics and Man are at an End for Man and Metaphysics cannot come to Love whereas Woman and Philosophy can come to Love to come to Being.
What is Being? Withing. Being-with. To-be is to-with. There is no Being without Withing. There is no Being without Thereing. Being-there. Being is there-with-being and in being-there-with we are being-with-one which is the Withing within the Thereing of being-there. Being begins being to begin with by being-with being-there and being-with is being-with-being-there and being only ever comes to Being by being with one there as the Withing of Being which is being-belonging-together as the Thereing of Being where we are With being There as being-together being-one with belonging-together with the There being-one-with the With of There of being-there-together-with the There with-one-with the With of Being one-there-together-being-one-together-belonging-together-with-one both-being-one living-one-together-dying-one-together for being with-the-with the two become the one for what is with is one-being-one not being-two for what is with is one-with which is where as when we are one-being-in love as-one.
Severed Sed Self-Portrait A.V.E June 2009
What is God? All Hating. God hates You. All Shitting. God shits You. God is Hate. God is Shit. The God Shit is Your Shit your Shit for God your Love for Shit for