Posted on Aug 3rd, 2007
by
Brondu
Post-Irony as Praxis
I’ve heard a rumor that postphenomenological methodology implicates “mimesis” as sustained, contained and rhythmic interactivity between original and copy. This means, assuming Miles, my vogue informer, was not overreacting to a bad acid trip or excited about a recent victory at pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, mimesis [can be] a dance of discourse. And not just any dance (the deeply scarring “Macarena”, for instance, I find particularly distasteful), but a dance so comprehensively ingrained in our experiential capitulations and collective prehensions [that] it tends to comprise an unconsciously activated means toward the achievement of dynamical meaning and the composite apprehension of various interpretants. It is, hypothetically, one route towards the generation of heterogeneous and socially-autopoietic metanets of (re)unified referents. Buried, copiously re-used informants seeping their caressive taint into our subjective experience to the deconstructed point where unmediated access to “immanent self-knowledge” becomes a (rather obvious) non-possibility. These discursive processes would, again assuming Miles wasn’t yanking my balls around, ironically excise dyadic referents- which are notorious for basking in their inflammatory claims at linear arrangement and aligned signifieds. “Smarmy” I think, is the word.
Under the banner of this deviant collection of perspectives, the following tends to occur: pseudostructural mediacy, encapsulated transivity, desublimated neologisms, the roots of syntax, a series of film clips and mostly anything that rhymes with ‘orange’, becomes a vastly communicative packet: a problem. So many fuckin problems it will feel like you strayed into your grandmother’s obsessive head. “Problematic” becomes a noun and supplementarity becomes a permeable strategy roving the linguistic unconscious for steadied application. Except, wait…!! the linearized operative word ‘becomes' is merely a transient structure crudely limning forgotten correlates to a world to which we relate [absolutely?] secondhand. And if I would not have caught that little distinction regarding the word ‘becomes’, the moral disintegration of America’s youth may have exponentiated to unfixable proportions. Oh, wait… … shit. I’m too late.
This vast underground web that unites us from the moment we say, ‘mom' and before, is not conditional but rather (allegedly) constitutive. The internal assertions of this methodological perspective hint at the creation of a “poststructuralist” epistemology. After all, when all language and behavior or all objects and “noumenon” (shudder) begin to become aware of themselves within noospheric space, there is a shift. Individually, this is a shift of direct experience and tends to include a lot of reflection on… what else? direct experience! This translates into a lot of thinking about thinking about one's self's experience. Hurray for self-talk! Here is an example of what that might look like after a hard night of drinking:
I often touch the shovel with ‘the Other’ as ‘the Other’ totally digs the irony of using mimetic process to speak of mimesis. I often hear ‘the Other’ listen as I play at reducing human beings to a whole bunch of enactive threads. I often watch ‘the Other’ as ‘the Other’ watches me: pretentiously pretending to see the world through every available filter while simultaneously expressing as much to the best of my ability. I often see ‘the Other’s’ eyes well up as I posture, alone, in front of the reflexive mirror of Irony. I often empathize with ‘the Other’ as ‘the Other’ empathizes with me: pointing out my faults and perpetrating each starkly outlined offense as I do so; painting myself into a brittle simulacrum and trying like all hell not to enjoy it.
Or, after a night of depression following a night of being shut down by droves of hot chicks:
When the contextualization of experience doesn't lead to your escape of its interpretive implications, where do you run to hide from the self-created walls that are crashing in on yourself?
As you can see by this example, it’s pretty much the funnest thing going. There are only two or three tiny holes. One of them is: I tried it on a girl and it proved as impotent as a baby horse’s penis. Another: it leans towards self-defeating. It enfolds within it the tiniest inclination towards developing into something less useful than Dean Koontz. A mere whiff of a possibility that you’ll actually end up literally having sex with yourself as a result of the continuation of its hold. To borrow a line from Psalty the Singing Songbook, “In God’s eyes, there are no losers. [Except chronic deconstructionists, irony-junkies and people who use humor in essays.]”
I know you’re not as bad off as me. I know you don’t consider yourself blundering through a meaningless existence, bumping into sentences with exclusively denotative meanings and discovering the obtuse need to clear your throat…or being slammed into the depressingly patent genealogies of increasingly boring conversations with “normal people”. I know you aren’t so disconnected you look at a grocery store flyer and start breakin’ down the meat specials- postmodern style. I know you’re not so addled by irony you could read a Deepak Chopra book and not be touched. Everyone is touched by Deepak Chopra.
Occasionally, however, being ox-fucked (by the incongruently enormous incorporation of these perspectives as primary modalities of thought and action) can happen, and when it does happen there are a couple of outs. Ways to regain your potency. Paths up from the slag-pit of overthought and whateverism. I’d like to share them with you.
-Convert your deconstruction into ethics. If you see a subject’s genesis manifesting in the subject’s present state, let that awareness carry its due weight instead of allowing the ignorance of the subject to override your empathy. It’s important.
-Don’t allow the unacknowledged precedence of an occasion prevent you from immersing yourself in it, especially if the occasion is all about love or friendship. It’s important.
-Overlook ambiguous terminology from time to time, especially if the person is really trying to get something across to you. It’s important.
-Take up a spiritual practice. Seriously! If you think Spirituality is a bunch of premodern ass-wipery promulgating and perpetuating its own bizarre ridiculousness in radical fashion (like a monkey with a toy windmill screeching itself into a really sad euphoria) than we are on the same page entirely (or we were, at one time); but the truthfulness of the tenets enfolded within the wisdom traditions are not undermined by a postmodern perspective- merely augmented. Spirituality is more than kick-ass. Please try your best to take that information from me, if only because it took me until today to realize it. It’s important.
-Be vulnerable. Words can make you invincible but your heart will suffer enormously. If you don’t allow yourself to re-open, you’ll die. It’s important.
In conclusion: as with all things, postmodern methodology as a primary mode of meaning-making can be made sustainable. Insanity can be prevented! But, again, as with all things, it takes practice.
With Love,
Brian David, 07
Access: Public
Print
views (323)