om svimning

 

 

 

Jag talar om en svimning. Jag hade ju svimmat förut.

 

Och en del av det traumatiska med svimningen är ju det, att man inte minns dessa delar av ens liv. Vad som hände när man var avsvimmad, det har man ingen aning om.

Vad som händer när man sover vet man heller inte. Men definitivt inte det, som händer en, när man är avsvimmad.

 

Jag kände en gång en man, som påstod att han mindes varje stund av sitt liv.

Låt oss kalla denne för Albert.

Albert kunde insistera på att få redogöra för vad han gjort den eller den dagen, för länge sedan.

”Vad gjorde du år 1960 den 3 februari klockan sex?”, kunde jag fråga.

Då stirrade Albert ut genom fönstret och började rekonstruktion. Han hade detta år gått i gymnasiets andra ring. Dagen var en måndag, det vissta han, eftersom han kom ihåg att den 20 januari  varit hans födelsedag och ….o.s.v.

 

Jag irriterades över Albert.

Till slut sa jag:

”Lacan påstår någonstans, att den som inte kan glömma, den kan inte minnas någonting. Har man allting aktuellt, då är det, att minnas uteslutet. Att minnas är för folk, som inte kommer ihåg saker.”

Min uppfattning var alltså, att det, att minnas, skulle vara liksom trons begrepp hos Kierkegaard, att det man minns, det skulle komma plötsligt, och som ur intet, och vara likt DET ABSURDA.

Saker man minns skall komma som ur INTET.

Om man alltså minns allting, så blir ens liv helt meningslöst, eftersom det då aldrig kan uppstå den förvåning som det plötsliga minnet utgör, när det, med sitt uppdykande, plötsligt ställer allting i ett nytt perspektiv.

Förutsättningen för det spännande och fullkomliga livet är alltså att man är sådan att man FULLSTÄNDIGT GLÖMMER BORT SAKER.

Så kan man säga, att den mest levande människan är den, som har en förmåga att glömma saker, likt det som sker under en svimning, fast på en mer frekvent basis, så att denne liksom lever i en dimma, mer eller mindre.

Endast den, som  lever som i en upprepad svimning, kan alltså verkligen komma ihåg saker, och på ett levande och existentiellt fruktbart sätt.

För den, som kommer ihåg allting, likt Albert, finns alltså inget hopp. För en sådan person är livet just bara som en rad händelser, som man kan beskåda när som helst, och som har sin mening fastslagen på förhand, i det  att man aldrig riktigt kan se den eller den händelsen i ett nytt ljus.

För att se en händelse i ett nytt ljus, så måste denna händelse ha varit solitt bortglömd, det var min uppfattning.

Detta sade jag aldrig till Albert.

Man vill ju inte vara elak.

Men kanske Albert, som också var en intelligent man, anade att jag misstyckte, eftersom han nog tillhörde dem som var skickliga i att tolka tystnader.

Så minns jag tydligt, hur det, efter att han berättat om sin lektion i kemi den 3. i februari 1960, uppstod en ekande tystnad.

Sedan sa Albert:

”Detta har vi talat om förr.”

Det mindes dock inte jag.

Livet är som en svimning.

 

 

 

 

 

INVITATION - en Roman

 https://www.kajgenell.com/XXX-INVITATION.html

Höstdrama. En roman online.

 https://www.kajgenell.com/hostdrama.html

Höstdrama. En roman online.

foto oil painting

 

Frida Hjertbergs gata. Göteborg. #fridahjertbergsgata #johanneberg

Byggår: 2017-18. Detta blev ett ganska högt hus...:

sett från frukt- och blomsteraffären tvärs över gatan.

Sett från Mackliersgatan

...nära till Willy:s

sky high

Till vänster i fjärran syns ljusbården på taket till FRida Hjertbergs gatan om natten.....

( 

 

.....sett från Solgårdarna

                                    sett från Bergsprängaregatan.....

Sett från Spaldingsgatan

I bakgrunden, till vänster.... ;)

sic!

 

Myths as predators

 

 

    

 

                THE PROLIFIC MYTH

 

 

A common idea is that a myth is something one analyzes, and that it is something not really real, but more fiction, albeit a fiction that has a deeper meaning than stories in general. What few people realize is that we all, individually, are parts of not just one, but parts of many myths. Equally few realize that these myths, of which we are so little aware, significantly determine our lives. As Claude Lévi-Strauss asserts[1], it is not the task of myth research to clarify how humans think, nor how myths think, but how myth thinks in humans. To gain perspective on what a myth is and is not - which is not entirely easy to determine - one can, while trying to determine this, also consider what humanity would have instead, as a better or worse substitute, if myths had never existed. Some people argue that myths are socially necessary, being as they are ( according to Barthes ) “ideological speech” -  and that the criterion of truth for a myth is its "effectiveness." The effectiveness of a myth—so the argument goes—would be connected to its general, empirically validated, positive validation and inspirational power. As everyone knows, fiction can be both a myth itself and a part of a myth. Fiction can still examine, in a conscious or unconscious way, the current overarching myth, as well as myths from earlier eras, or alternatively, myths from humanity’s very early childhood, when we separated ourselves from beings with, in some respects, lower levels of consciousness. The myth is peculiar when looked at more closely; as Lévi-Strauss—the man behind books such as The Savage Mind and The Jealous Potters—points out, the myth and its parts are such that no part of a myth is more important than another.[2] Indeed, one could say of a myth—unlike historical writing—that no part is independently significant, or that all parts are. Just as it is in a work of art. Through integrated totality, art operates. But fiction is then—as mentioned—both a myth, as a historical phenomenon, and a creator of myth in its diverse forms: literature, visual arts, or film, etc., etc.

Myths are messages;[3] they are communication. Myths are not very often created on demand.[4] A conspiratorially inclined person might believe that this is precisely what they do. That they are tailored to lead the herd of sheep. No, myths mostly emerge from other created things, or other signs, concepts or myths.. They often come as something imposed, as if to seal holes that have opened up, or because something hangs loosely and flaps in the wind. That this is the case does not mean that Power cannot benefit from it, and that the powerless cannot suffer from the effects of the myths sanctioned by power. Myths are not created from nothing, - no they are never primary - , but they always build on some event or idea that has matured for a while. After a suitable time period, the myth thus – second hand predators as they are - emerges. In this, it resembles mysticism, which, according to a theory presented by G. Scholem, arises in relation to a religion only after some time has passed, and perhaps when the religion in question has lost a little of its initial charm. And it is like the Renaissance, which did not arise fifty years after antiquity, but only in the 1300s-1400s, when an aura had began to form around what the ancient people had engaged with, which attracted as one perhaps found one’s own time rather gloomy[5], and a bit too overshadowed by Christianity[6]. It would, of course, not least in the interest of the powerless, be beneficial to try to clarify what promotes the creation of holes and rifts, and what they are primarily filled with in terms of mythic material, and what it means when things hang loosely and flap in the wind, especially when myths are keen to ensure that this does not happen. What regularities exist in this vast ideological, trope, and narrative supramechanism of myth production? What is it that causes, as soon as a sign, a concept, an ideology, a set of beliefs,  a conceptual phenomenon is born or made conscious, that a myth forms in its vicinity, overshadowing it?

Are there, as Barthes and Baudelaire thought, objects that are fundamentally suggestive,[7] so that they are almost doomed from their conception to evolve into myths? If so, why?

          Were the works of Kafka and Freud such objects, - “fundamentally suggestive”? If so, why? If they were, were they only suggestive in a certain historical context? If so, which context? “Le rapport de la crise et du discours définit l´œuvre.”[8]

 It is important to realise that when the myth is formed it regards its object, which is a conception, a set of conceptions or a set of beliefs and values, as PRIMA MATERIA, as something given, established, and which in itself can not n be disputed. Hence, myth, so to speak, sets out as a source interpreting the EVIDENT. Myth speaks directly to the people, as myth almost always is very simple in its form, and positions itself as the friendly interpreter, the underdog, in the service of the broader layers of the people.

        That is why, because people also know this, myth subsequently has been seen equivalent to “lie”, to untruth. At the same time as the myth is seen as something which is not true, it has yet an existence, and since it has obliterated what it is a myth about, it still stands as a kind of description of something real, which, even if people always realize that it may not be true at all, still forms itself as some kind of fact in the actual cultural universe.

Myth is therefore like the well known face of an unknown, thriving in our society and in our minds.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> cf. www.kajgenell.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] L.-S., Le Cru et la Cuit, p. 20.

[2] As if through some marvel, many historians of ideas are also renowned musicologists, like, for instance, Adorno, Lévi-Strauss, and Vladimir Jankélevitch, and it is in fact very rare to meet with absolutely tone-deaf people, like S. Freud, involved in the study of myths.

[3] Barthes, p.193.

[4] Cf. The Huntington myth of “the clash of civilisations”. Philosophical myths can be regarded as ordered. They are often ordered by religious leaders, or by failed Philosophy itself, and are often construed, rationalistically, as a material for religious speculation, involving dubious concepts like “The Absolute”, which has absolutely no meaning at all. Cf. Spinoza, Lévinas, and Kolakowski.

[5] Scholem, Den Judiska Mystiken. ( Jewish Mysticism.)

[6] Michael Levey, Early Renaissance.

[7] Barthes, p.194.

[8] Ib.p.199.

epstein files

Robert Garcia to  CNN “this is absolutely breaking the law.” “It could be that they that we’re only getting about 10% of what the DOJ has,”  “And of that 10%, 5% of that has already been released, and the other 5% is highly redacted. So we’re getting very little.”