If, as Derrida has suggested, every autobiography is in fact a thanatography, when “blogging,” to whom do I really speak? Or as Lacan would have it, is the very act of creating an ‘I’ an act of repression? In such a case I select those aspects to include in my story that at this moment (or rather, at the moment just passed) appear in harmony with the “I” I choose to represent -- while at the same time, an infinity of other aspects never appear, and are in fact, obliterated by my choice.
Where is the repression, one might ask? When I write of myself, of my life, there are three actions taking place: the choice of what to write, the choice of what to ignore, and finally, the act of forgetfulness, where no conscious choice is made because the possibilities never rise to the surface. In this realm, neither history nor law can take part – it is the gap that is never filled as itself, but only as a representation of something else, a Secret peeking out from between the lines.
If this is true, then Derrida’s assertion that the archive is both constitutive of the self and simultaneously destructive – the essence of pure evil, as he says, in which the act of representation kills all that is outside its explicitly named, its legal, boundaries – is at heart an assertion that life and death co-exist eternally in the moment passing by, with death continually triumphing until life emerges superior in that interminable, yet final breath. (Ala The Life and Death of Ivan Ilych?)
As I write about my thoughts, about my life, the I who writes and the me to whom I speak temporarily seem to merge, but this is fantasy. The gap between I and me can never fully be closed in rational thought. And when I write of my life to myself, where are the boundaries between myself and others, since I sense that the me to whom I speak is not the same as the I who speaks? If no one ever reads this post, do I as I constitute myself at this moment cease to exist? If people read and respond, does this post not reconstitute me according to their words?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
entirely too philosophical for me. i dont get it :(
oh good, I can post. I heard a radio show about a publishing company who collect thanatographies from writers at the scene of their death. i googled the word (singular) and find a refernce to bunnies !! (I saw a bunny yesterday) who multiply and are fairly interchangeable their generation so fast, volumonous, ongoing - does a 'bunny' ever die?
and then a reference to Derrida as the originator of this word???
And you, archiving, and asking if you exist?
I must disagree with you about Lacan saying that we 'repress' the 'I'. Or, less rudely, ask you where you find this in Lacan?
I would understand Lacan (as Freud) saying we repress the es, It, s - post-repression the unconscious subject, that never ceases not-speaking.
The 'I' and 'me' you say, - one of them you pose as the neighbour of the thou?? the one who will (not) read your message? me? Might not have, did.
The 'I' and 'me' - the personality and inner sense?
But you write, and archive and are surprised by bunnies!
Thankyou, this is one of the very few blog entries ever read that speaks to me.
(when I registered for word verification word was 'nomake')
When did you come to ex(in)ist?
T.
Post a Comment