It is okay to be confused (It may even be better than knowing).まごまごとしどろもどろな事がいいです。(知識を比べて多分もっと良いか)

Brilliant words flowing … From those never knowing, how many lives they touch….

(2001) Connie Marcum Wong

全然知るの人から多い人生達を接触(せっしょく)がして素敵な単語は流麗(りゅうれい)です。

(二千一年)コニ.マルクム.ヲング

I would like to thank Tsunoda Japanese School and its students for helping me release and promote my ebook. The video we made to advertise the book demonstrates the uniqueness of the poetry me and my teacher strove to share with the world; and again I am extremely grateful to all the Taiwanese Japanese language students that came forward to help me with the release of this book.  Living and working in Asia for some years now I have come to be accustomed to situations where I do not know what is going on… This is not a problem  if an individual harbors honest intentions to learn then every moment remains a gift in itself. The dominant East Asian languages contain fantastic poetic structures but I have to admit other than Matsu O’ Basho and Dogen my understanding of the poetic of works is very little. However, I have in my studies delved deeper into the many interesting and smaller component parts of the language. Take for example the Japanese word  Zappai  meaning playful literature is a descriptive term that could apply to all the writing I attempt. The second example is the famous example of a kind of unique literature to Japan. The work Again in the Hōjōki’  by Kamo no Chōmei is an example of Zuihitsu (Texts that respond to the authors’ surroundings). I’ve yet to read this bit of Japanese literature I look forward to doing so because a work such as this contains an example of how deeply contradictory language is. For me when confronted with the Hōjōki (a ten foot square hut) I’m reminded of a certain confusion regarding language: it appears to us as being limitless infinite in potential but for humans the beings who are known for their dependency on language it is certainly finite and limited. 

Everyone and everything is in a ten foot square hut … 

Nobody and nothing is in a ten foot square hut …’ 

私のエ本を出す事が手伝うのでつのだ日本語学と学生達を有難いです。ビデオは私と森田先生の詩を世界でシェアしたいですので、台湾人の日本語学生ために私は本当にまた「ありがとうございます」と言うなければなりません。アジアでみつの年に住んだに私は知らないの経験を慣(な)れました。もし、すべての経験から個人は真面目な意思と習う事が出来るので問題じゃないです。東亜諸国の言葉は素敵で私的な形があるけど、松尾 芭蕉(まつお ばしょう)と永平道元無し私の知識を狭いです。しかし、私の学ぶ事で言葉の面白くて小さい部分に探りました。例えば日本語の単語で、私の書くので、雑俳(さっぱい)の意味はプレーフルな文学が記述的な用語です。二回目の例えは有名な文学が日本でユニークな物です。「’方丈記’」鴨 長明さんの本は随筆です。私はこの本を読めましたけどこの本が言葉の深い矛盾(むじゅん)を有ります。私の意見は方丈記で言葉のある種の当枠を連想(れんそう)します。言葉は無限と秒秒(びょうびょう)をみたいですけど、人間のために言葉が有限と限り(かぎ)ある。

「誰もがすべてが10フィート四方の小屋にあります…

10フィート四方の小屋には誰も何もありません…」

Language is certainly a contender for one of the strangest things known to humankind. The possibility of a language-less world is impossible; for nature has had its communication long before homosapiens started making complex patterns in sound. The genesis of language can be considered to arise or start from a need to make sense of pictures, of images, and the meaning they enable. Writing on this blog I have already posted about the inspiration of Derrida and Wittgenstein on how language constructs many competing perspectives. The most interesting of these is inherited from an important moment in the history of thinking. The moment which I speak of is the realisation and perhaps the rediscovery of a long held understanding: that if we seek to contemplate existence, what it means to be, we inevitably arrive at the notion that our mental or subjective experience of our own existence distorts and indeed governs the way we are. This is also a Buddhist notion that behind the appearance of things there resides a deeper truth to being. This can be rephrased as suggesting that having a perspective is not at all helpful in understanding the truer Truth. The European articulation of this is to be located in a line from Germany to France a life long conversation between the ideas of Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. This version of our linguistic interest runs as follows: Humans in as far as they exist can only talk of this being. The being of beings, not of Being itself. Now, the scientists amongst you hawk and state this as rubbish and you are entitled to such an opinion; but do not stop reading just yet.

言葉は確かに人間の知識でどれか変な物です。世界が言葉無しは無理:ホモセピエンスの言う事が始まる時前に自然はコミュニケーション(疎通、そつう)がありました。絵とイメージの意味がわかるなければ必要ですからこれは言葉の原因(げんいん)です。このブログで言葉どうやってぶつけ合うの遠近法(えんきんほう)を作るのでデリださんとウィトゲンシュタインさんの文書は感奮しました。一番面白い遠近法はエウロパの考えるの歴史で大切な時から血を引きました。この瞬時(しゅんじ)は昔の理解仕方をまた見つけたに、もし存在の意味を知れば私達の精神的(せいしんてき)な経験と考え方も私達のいる方は治(おさ)めります。これも仏教のイデアですので見た目後ろに存在の真実が

ドエルです。言い換(か)えるのでもっと正しい真実は理解でければ遠近法が便利じゃないです。エウロパ的な判読(はんどく)はドイツからフランスまでの線でデリダさんとマルティン・ハイデッガーさんのイデア達間に見つける事が出来ます。この語学的な関心(かんしん)は述(の)べるので、「人間はこの存在が言えるだけ、有情無情の存在を言えるですけど実在が全然言いません。」と話します。今、皆で科学者(かがくしゃ)はだめと言うので、その意見もいいですけどこの文書を読んでください。

Science and its method always seeks to arrive at objectivity: a position of knowledge considered to be real. It frequently does produce useful information within a given context so the benefits of having this thing called science and the use of language it enables (highly rational, explainable, and believable) are there to experience yet it is also extremely relativistic. What am I trying to say here? Well let me simplify: a perspective that I am keen on nurturing is the one that questions the outcomes or result of language usage or behaviour that produces more knowledge. What happens if it is possible to know everything? What happens to that which is authentically new and relative if we believe it is already known or even knowable. Our perspective becomes impoverished we loose the initial premise knowledge itself is generated from the original position or proposition of not knowing. The fact that objective knowledge so often looses its way and becomes yet another commodity on a market I find unhelpful to living organisms. This process generates bad belief in a possessive type of knowing. In my ebook I’ve made a small attempt to point towards something else: An Uu (Understated-understanding) such an alliterated concept I would encourage to be defined as the potential to resist the pitfalls of objective knowledge and the havoc it wreaks on limiting the life experiences of so many members of the species…

科学と方法はいつも客観(きゃっかん)をくれたい「実な知識」です。科学はコンテクストでよくに便利な報知(ほうち)を作るから、それが可能にする言語の使用(非常に合理的で、説明可能で、信じられる)は体験することができますが、それはまた非常に相対論的です。ここで何を言おうとしていますか? 簡単に説明します。私が育成に熱心に取り組んでいる視点は、言語の使用や行動の結果や結果に疑問を投げかけ、より多くの知識を生み出します。すべてを知ることができるとどうなりますか? それがすでに知られているか、または知っているとさえ信じるならば、本当の新しい相対的なものに何が起こるか。 私たちの視点は貧弱になり、最初の前提知識自体が失われます。知識自体は、元の位置または知らないという命題から生成されます。客観的な知識がしばしばその道を失い、市場でさらにもう1つの商品になるという事実は、私は生物にとって役に立たないと感じています。 このプロセスは、所有のタイプの知識に対する悪い信念を生み出します。 私の電子ブックでは、他のことを指すように小さな試みをしました。Uu(Understated-Understanding)のようなうわべだけの概念は、客観的な知識の落とし穴とそれが制限にもたらす大混乱に抵抗する可能性として定義されることをお勧めします 種の非常に多くのメンバーの人生経験…

This Uu concept I hope can encourage lesser explored perspectives such as how cultures of writing can erase knowledge in a useful way. Or, how things such as the internet or the archival habit of humans (a desire for history and useful fiction and myth) point towards the possibility of collective appreciation of what already is… rather than the propensity to overvalue knowledge and attributing our own meaning over already deeply meaningful things. The fact that you had a past, you are in a present, and will be in a future makes me aware that creative use of language and the act of poetic expression can assist us in finding new moments for appreciation. 

このUuのコンセプトは、執筆の文化がどのようにして有用な方法で知識を消去できるかなど、あまり探求されていない視点を奨励できることを願っています。 または、インターネットや人間のアーカイブの習慣(歴史と有用なフィクションと神話への欲求)などが、すでにあるものを集合的に評価する可能性をどのように指し示しているのか…知識を過大評価して自分の意味を すでに意味のあること。 あなたが過去を持っていて、あなたが現在にいて、将来にいるという事実は、言語の創造的な使用と詩的な表現の行為が感謝の新しい瞬間を見つけるのを助けることができることを私に認識させます。

All I wish is for people who encounter this collection to leave after rethinking the value of having a confusion or being confused. Certainty can occasionally be overrated in some circumstances. 

私が望むのは、このコレクションに遭遇した人々が、混乱や混乱の価値を再考した後に去ることです。 状況によっては、確実性が過大評価されることがあります。

Please buy my ebook here <…>, or there <…>, or over there <..>.

このイービーを買えるのでここに<…>、そこに<…>, あそこに<..>.

Thank you,  Paul Harrison, Taoyuan, Taiwan 

どうもありがとうございます!ポール.ハリソン、桃園,台灣。

Things That Had to be Cut From My Leuven Phil. Paper

 

Writing about Accelerationism this year has been a blast primarily because this Philosophy seemed to grow up beside me as I have constantly had a deep disdain for my own relation to Capital (mainly how it makes me feel uncomfortable) and this necessity of having to sell my labour has since the very beginning of my working life at the age of 15 as a kitchen porter been somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a career working nine to five and developing yourself, yet this always forgets that even this is not protected and guaranteed under law and the notion of rights secured by our cultural and institutional powers. This I think can be quickly summarised by saying although we do appear to be progressing towards some murky sense of equality (universal income …) this forgets a perspective that reveals a picture which challenges us to ask questions such as: If there was such a thing as a minimum wage then why is there not a maximum wage? A question like this is one we should ask ourselves; at least it will remind oneself of the sheer hypocrisy and inauthenticity of the economic superstructure known as capitalism. Let me be more clearer… I am not completely dismissing the need for some economy I am only highlighting and repeating that the one we have today is a zombie like sacrificial body – it is slowly turning us into Zombies.

After, living in Japan I regained enthusiasm for philosophy, art, and language. During this period of time I discovered a thinker who I wish to read everyday Mark Fisher, and through Fisher I discovered Nick Land. Land is one of those peeps responsible for accelerationism having a pro-capitalist agenda and therefore was in need of critique. When critiquing someone’s work it also at the same time a mark of respect and an acknowledgement even if it takes the form of a miss-reading of the original authors intentions. I am not saying this is what I have intentionally done, but the entire history of philosophy is most likely one incomprehensible miss-reading. I felt obliged to do this because one is vigilant against Land being used by those forces of the political spectrum that would look to the past undemocratic social forms and see a positive in sacrificing humanity as we now glimpse it. I saw an over-dependency on the very real figure of the cyborg and a dismissal of some of the positive qualities we all semi-consciously enact.

My paper The Existential Politics of Acceleration offers an argument that attempts to think through ‘death’ and specifically the idea of the death of humanity that is seen by some as an inevitability. Resulting in an argument that expresses the existential alternatives to any unnecessary sacrifice. I have to express gratitude to everyone that read the drafts of the paper, offering great advice, and especially to our teacher Dr. Marieke Brugnera who after reading the first draft pointed me to Sophocles’s Oedipus the King to help me structure the writing. Marieke is an awesome reader of Soren Kierkegaard and wrote her phd on this prince of existentialism and Deleuze. Critical theorist Benjamin Noy’s book was also something that greatly supported this ambition to contribute to the growing criticism of this contemporary philosophical movement.

During the process of editing and rewriting some things where left out because they where all too much to fit into one BA Paper… The following is a list of such leftovers perhaps to some individuals this may be of interest (Also sorry about all this talk on death but hey this is philosophy after all?).

  • The Inevitable Death of Your Parents Gives You Language

This does not just apply to one’s biological parents but also to progression from something in the past that generates the language of today. I think even if we consider the inevitable demise of ones parents this does carry such huge importance that I see it as foundational for the way you as a child, all of us as children of a mother or father inherit our language from our parents, yet their death is also your death, just as your birth is also their birth. Freud’s use of Oedipus and Sophocles play itself shows one of the two most disturbing possible behaviours of the human: incest and canabilistic potential. Yet, I have chosen to read it as a structure that allows us to approach language with wiser eyes. … Also, I used a little bit of modal logic to diagram this (it has a Hegelian flavour to it:)):

Ba paper logic cryptogram

 

Having thought this I am not sure to what extent this is just a natural reaction to the uneasiness that Freud’s thesis gives me, or it is an actual structure in reality one continues to ponder… YET I love both my parents and if anything both of them taught me the concept of impermanence. When as an adult I discovered inequality which makes a mockery of the prior state, that is without a shred of doubt a part of our nature. I became an unwavering enemy of Capitalism and a firm believer in utopian, that is creative thinking. So, this is just a model of how I understand the strange necessity of language gaining…

 

  • Strange Thought Processes and Diagrams (Groupings of Concepts/Ideas and Thinkers) / Logic Practice

logic

 

Ba Paper Diagram 001

argument diagram

  • Pikida ぴ乞沱 (ピキダ)

 

Pikida after the two boys in my argument. The first in the native American story involving the ritual of corn balls Piki, and the second in Freud’s analysis of the Fortsein game where the boy after retrieving his toy on a string from its banishment joyfully yells ‘Da’ (there), as in there it is! See, Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle, pp.12. In Japanese Pikida ぴ乞沱 (ピキダ) the Kanji 乞‘ki’ means ‘invite’, or ‘ask. 沱, ‘da’ the ‘flowing of tears’ This is my own invention a neologism that names the death I have described and the emotional effect I wish it to carry to my reader. This entire paper could be read as a demand to think about the disturbing idea of your self without others, without our species. In other words my belief is that it is possible to think of new ways to exist as a social entity, but revolutions, both political and social depend on what we might suggest to be instances of linguistic change also and this will become increasingly important as humanity increasingly desires change.

Just another addition I think one of the most powerful commentaries on death in the realm of contemporary art is the video art work Rachel, Monique (2006) by French artist Sophie Calle which is a video of her mother on her death bed. Such a proposition of catching the last breath of either your father or mother contains the emotion that Pikida ぴ乞沱 (ピキダ) contains…

img_06951

 

From Socrates in the Platonic dialogues discussing the philosopher as practising dying (because these guys really did not care much for even a sniff of materialism, never mind libidinal notions) to Heidegger and being-towards-death. The process at the end of life has always been historically central yet I think putting too much emphasis on post-humanism or the figure of the cyborg is all well and good but this should not trample over the human and label it unimportant or lacking progression. This is why I wanted to respond to the commentary on accelerationism and Nick Land…

Also, My writing this year is heavily dependent on arguing for or writing upon language … language, language, language. That is because it has become my home over these last three years – a home that constantly inspires wonder rather than disenchantment. Also my conclusion of the paper does not comment on a disturbing thought: that a desire for death is not just on the horizon but is already here… I am referencing Japan (Tokyo) and Korea (seoul) but this phenomena is sadly everywhere. A relation of over work to suicide 😦 but, this does not include the debate on euthanasia. These things need more reflection on my part but in the future I think they demonstrate that the phenomena of death is becoming increasingly important to human reality.

For those readers who are interested please get in touch if you want to read my BA Paper The Existential Politics of Acceleration: Nick Land, Oedipus, and Language I will send you a copy. It has been a real enjoyable and challenging experience studying with so many fine folk in this seminar group: Nikos Koroneos, Yorgos Alpha, Zoë Que, Farah, Albin, Marlieke, and many others who I am sorry if I forget to mention.

 

 

 

__Bataille, Georges. (1988). The Accursed Share, An Essay On The General Economy, Volume 1, Consumption, Zone Books, New York.

__Bataille, Georges. (1985). ‘The Use Value Of D.A.F De Sade’, in Visions Of Excess: Selected Writings 1927-1939, Theory and History of Literature, Volume 14, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

__Noys, Benjamin. (2014), Malign Velocities: Accelerationsim and Capitalism, Zero Books, Winchester U.K, Washington U.S.A.

__Deleuze, Gilles. Guatarri, Félix. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

__Land, Nick. (2014). ‘Circuitries’, in #Accelerate# The Accelerationist Reader, edited by Robin Mackay, Armen Avenessian, Urbanomic, London – Merve, Berlin.  

__Land, Nick. (1992). The Thirst For Annihilation: George Bataille & Virulent Nihilism (an Essay on Atheistic Religion), Routledge, London.

__Land, Nick. Editors: Mackay, R. & Brassier, R. (2012). Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987 – 2007, Urbanomic London, Sequence Press New York.