II. Love in the discourse, love for the text
”To remain within the system, breaking it from INSIDE…”
P. Brookner/A. Finkilcroit
The ecstatic, untameable in a required or final form, fateful, and fatal as a strategy of existence in which complementary principles of LIFE and DEATH, CREATION and DESTRUCTION center – love is unpredictable, and DANGEROUS, but at the same time (maybe just due to this) it is heuristic, comprehendible, discovering, creative, shape-creative, and hence, maybe far more suitable to be an APPROACH rather than a theme of expounding.
Before these, nowadays obvious, progressive and unstoppable CHILLING of the world which takes place with the mediation of computer monitors; amidst the ironically called “ecstasy of communication” (Jan Bodriar), the virtual reality and techno-aesthetics and techno-rhetoric; in the rise and incurable influence of the pathological Platonism (as Ernesto Sabato calls the usual for philosophers uneasiness when faced with the corporeality, femaleness, fertility, pulsing, existentialism), the need for revival of the tactility of the text, of the literature, of the letter is increasingly gaining in intensity, the tactility which is boldly and passionately provoked in Nietzsche’s papers, who was writing his commitments “with his own blood” (George Batai) not hiding and not disguising them in cold meta-linguistic clothes, and not concealing his “joys and pains”. On the contrary. Nietzsche’s eagerness to create an anarchic and self-confessional artistic (anti)science, the striving that has infected us all who are participating in the once actual drama of love, has to embody the inseparable link between love and theory; to affirm the erotic approach towards creativity; love for the text; the reader’s Eros, passion; the diffusive obsession and preoccupation; the meandering through the mystic ecstasy such is an encounter with and experience of the literature.
Recognizable through the hermeneutics of the flow, or “The Flux” (Deles and Gatary), through the pan-vitalist streaming and circulation of energy, ontologization of desire, metaphoricalness of nomadism and trampishness, as well as through the principles of the body criticism – the post-theory, apart from offering programme overcoming of binary logic and male-female contrast, also strives to unite the text with the world/cosmos seeing the glory of life, as much as the glory of the letter in the LUST, with the help of the actual poetics of androgenic inter(s)-(t)extual identity of the text.
This even more when the post-theory comprehends and elucidates the phenomenon of love through the prism of inter-textualism discovering in it the fatum of an omni-presence, of in-coding. “I know love before I experience it, the certainty of loving is always in its recognizability” (P. Brukner, 1989:110).
The citing character of love (efficiently stressed by the lucid Umberto Eco in his post-modern version of the classical love statement), inter alia warns us to seek the evolutional ontology and genealogy of love in the magic hideout of secret (inter-textual) whispers, in erotological archetypes and codes of culture.
III. “Is philosophy, above all, a condition of lovingness” – Ferid Muhikj
Wanting to recognize it or not with his/her inherent, immanent infidelity (and insatiability) with only one text (or theoretical method), the critic is inevitably one of the advocates of the Don Juanian myth (as Akile Boniot Oliva puts it).
If love is a category of choice, the critic, in his/her predetermination to love (towards, but not exclusively in the framework of the text), leaves himself/herself nomadically to polygamistic enjoyment which is givingly commended by the letter.
Being aware of the huge increasing complex of the so-called black spots in the knowledge and science, of the blockage in transparent mind and the rise of paralogisms in the domain of the so-far exact sciences, the post-critic is neither uncomfortable nor ashamed anymore from the fact that sometimes he tangentially touches the sphere of mysticism, the area of the unutterable, the ecstatic.
If Ludvig Wintenstein Solomonianly says that “One should not speak about what should be kept unuttered”, nowadays Jack Deride “does just what he says”(Gregory Ulmer, 1983) with his essays, enabling them the supremacy, priority of typically erotic (Tantric) techniques of the break, interruptedness and lingering, the collage and montage.
Paraphrasing the cult hippie slogan, this would mean “let’s make love, not a war” with texts, the literature, with the magic of the artistic form; let’s cherish and foster and feed the textual love, the Eros towards a literary work, instead of having a sterile, suffocating, arrogant and rigid (quasi)scientific and inquisitional relation towards it. Not forgetting the brilliant wisdom devilishly said by the charming Danilo Kis in one of his latest notes: “Don’t let the literature take the place of love. It is also – dangerous…”
Don’t let love as the primal must of the existential eroticism, as a quintessence of the existence and the highest stake of the life alchemy (wedding), in which contrasts are mutually attracted creating a higher unity – fade away or vanish.
Octavio Pas (1994): Dama i svetica, in Republika,Zagreb
Vladimir Biti (1997): Pojmovnik suvremene knjizhevne teorije, Zagreb
Storejdik Peter (1992): Doci na svijet, dospeti u jezik, Zagreb
Fuko Mishel (1992): Geneologija na modernosta, Sofia
Iglton Teri (1996): Stanje u teoriji, in Ovdje, Podgorica, br. Oktobar (427)
Brukner Paskal / Alen Finkilkraut (1989): Novi ljubavni nered, Beograd
Muhikj Ferid (1995): Jazikot na filozofijata, Skopje
Ulmer Gregory (1983): The Object of Post-Criticism, in: Anti-Aesthetic(ed. Hal Foster)
Kish Danilo (1998): Lautata i belezite, in Sum, Shtip, br. 16 (zima)
Bart Rolan (1978): Fragmenti ljubavnog govora, Beograd; in Treci program RTB, br. 36 Nis (1975): Zadovoljstvo u tekstu.