I begin training – a keen spit-distance to monitor resistance and friendship in the external signs of vital companionship. To moisten the negotiations. To hoick as much as I can fit in my throat and somehow make it come out laughing in the voice of the reader.
How long will I be in your life for?
I want to think about the body of the reader and the poem.
Nin on D.H:
“the body had its own dreams”
“Lawrence was patient. He gave his characters time. They are to find their own way and hour of resurrection. It was very slow this gaining in confidence in the wisdom of the body. So Lawrence was patient, through a maze of timidities, retractions, blunders, awkwardness’s”
I relate to the durational progress of confidence in the intimacy one rekindles with ones own senses and bodily instincts in the everyday sense – and in specific ways in the act of writing – the translation of form into new suspicions of form.
I wonder at the relation of the individual’s moment of rediscovering the wisdom of the body – to lurch inside wisdom – to that of another individual’s – taking place somewhere else.
Is it necessary to communicate the lurch? How does this happen if you don’t understand it enough to put it into some form of language? Do you resist primarily the duration of the resurrection and rather you commit intimacy through habits of memorisation, transformation that is possibly imbedded in your own experience of time as much as anyone else’s.
These habits ultimately have recourse to their wild body of dreams – in this way habits are true and virtuous, because they exceed us without warning, change course, leave us standing alone with nothing but the resurrection of one’s body. Ultimately alive and well in the chemical reaction (tension/resistance) of the intimate relation – apart but reacting together.
This state of transformation is the habit-relationship.
However it is necessary to consider the reader relationship more specifically (especially if I want to establish a relation between the reader and his/her own voice, over and above my own or those of my characters. I need to consider the significance of duration in terms of intimacy and companionship with the reader and how this will be vitalised by the voices in the monologue.
Age and environment of protagonist – does it matter?
Nin on D.H. “It is an effort to recapture genuine evaluations, like those of children before they are taught. A child will say to an older person who has been playing with him and participating whole-heartedly in his make-believe: Are you older than me? How can that be?”
To resist at any age you wish. To become companions whenever it suits.
Hannah Arendt (Reflections on Literature and Culture) suggests Kafka’s protagonist’s super-human-ness resides in a consciousness without career other than resistance – a pure antagonism that generates a model behaviour or ‘good-will’ over and above the moral realism of the situation or context or environment or institution or ‘façade’ that the protagonist single-mindedly confronts.
The profession of resistance – rather than the habits of one professional reality requiring moral opposition from another to exist. This reminds me of how Arendt wrote about Aquinas ideas of good and evil and that evil is not the absence of good but self sufficient and mobilised by its own mechanisms. The binary does not illuminate the mechanisms of each in a singular way – the binary distorts agency whether for better or worse.
Resistance has a long romantic history.
I want to dwell on this a bit more to get at how I’m going to conduct my own romantic pursuits in this collection.
“Blueprints cannot be understood except by those who are willing and able vividly to imagine the intentions of the architect and the future appearances of the building.” (104 -5). Here Arendt suggests Kafka’s approach is more involved with imaginative consciousness rather than sensory experience.
“Kafka’s protagonists are not motivated by any kind of revolutionary ambitions; they are propelled only by their good will, which exposes the hidden structures of this world almost without knowing it, or wanting to.” 104
“Kafka’s stories…contain no elements of daydreaming and offer neither advice nor edification nor solace”
I think I can attempt to vitalise resistance while flaunting the romantic excess of subdued and uninhibited contradictions of ‘daydreaming, advice’ and ‘edification’ – this is hard to articulate, but if I get out of the habit of characters or voices concerned with whether romanticism is progressive or regressive – and enter at the heart, the spinal column, the nervous system – whatever and whichever means – in each case to ride Benjamin’s ‘wave’, resist and protest and continue to do so, to resurrect resistance, the body of it as it fails and succeeds, joy of birth on top of birth. I want the writing to come to an experience of resistance – rather than prioritise ‘distance’ or ‘lack’ or ‘phenomenological truth’ as exhibits of the experience vs. consciousness debate.
In logical terms:
Resistance is a key social tool – key to the purpose and hope of non-linearites – social action and vital companionship.
This is how resistance works – as a process that memorises the living action of something or someone whether they are alive or dead – always the purpose of exceeding the social contract of death – but the necessity of transcendence is thus discredited by ongoing resistance in this situation – as transcendence is mono-resistance – sapiens-resistant and so in this case falls down.
To trust in pure purpose, how romantic. I am a romantic, I require the bustle of time and the solitude of eternity. But this is where companionship comes in.
The world has changed. The world outside Kafka’s novels is now focused less on necessities as such but the speeding up of necessities – to put them in stride with our time-keeping, even ideally ahead of us, insisting true structural mechanisms are merely forms suspicious of other forms. What we are living with is the death of necessity in favour of acceleration of resistance over and above socially plausible timeliness and companionship.
So time is mobilised in new ways – but still with little hope of structural companionship.
I will be dealing with visualised habits of resistance exceeding us and coming up short at great speed. This is why light and sound and visualisations of the future will be so important to the writing – are already. The universe may be telling a good joke – and who are we to hurry it along? As Calvino said one should never ‘hurry myth’.
I initially said I wanted to look at how people imagine, neglect, seek out, and/or memorize the worlds or concerns of others. An individual can pursue true habitation of purpose in a world of others (go solo), and put more concisely an individual can pursue and assume the habits of a shared purpose vitalised by this collection of individual variety.
To share in the world consciousness is the human condition but to share habits and purpose is more difficult to negotiate as it requires durational and non-linear protest – because all social interactions lead to non-linearity’s – however this require a commitment to true and varied purposeful uninhibited resistance.
Does this warn against idealism? Or reinstate a new way of thinking idealism? In a way you could take the chance – chance is realised nicely in this sense – but I still don’t like the predominance of one idealism – ignorance, sameness, indifference – whatever it is. But then hope here lies with the writer reader relationship – the companionship of imaginations. The chance to achieve vital signs, or if it takes your fancy, to die “of exhaustion – a perfectly natural death.”
I begin training.