(en ingles)
Another
contribution concerning Cells of Redemption and its depersonalizing nature. Dedicated to
myself and to my
affinity comrade Federico Del Buono.
Maurizio de mone
THE TWO FACES OF
SILENCE
Nothingness as
Experience of oneself – Nothingness as Escape from oneself.
‘The ego,
therefore, exists. But does it exist in the way it appears to me? No, because
it appears to
me in a way that
involves the conformation of my senses and intellect, i.e. in a way that does
not
reflect reality
in itself. My appearance is nothing but a sign, not a copy of reality.
The awareness of
my ego is made by my appearance.
It makes me aware
of an ego that is not my real ego.
Nevertheless this
real ego reveals itself in flashes, as quite rarely and in an incomplete way,
it
bursts from the
subterranean and dark abysses of the subconscious; and it gives me the vague
and
confused
impression that I’m not what I seem to be but something mysterious and
different. The real
ego, the true
ego, cannot be found but in the unconscious. And it is there that it is
necessary to look
for it, and
understand it, as much as possible.’
Enzo Martinuci –
NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
The Cell
as
a place – which I’d widely extend to all the redemptive and non redemptive Cells that
noisily clutter close
morals and all
ethical
behaviours – where the act of depersonalization is carried
out (here too it would
be the case to start a full debate on the possibility of the individual, as a
whole in its
fragmentation, to be able to be a nonsense and a personal contradiction).
The Redemptive
Void is
nothing more than the purification of something of accomplished and
irremediable – for those
who condemn and those who repent themselves – out of space, already
filed in the past by
eternal presents.
I don’t want to discuss
causes and contributory causes that lead single individuals and their jailers
to
enter in a relation with
each other, at least this is not the point I’d like to discuss at present.
The Limbo a place
without time and paradoxically limited; the Oblivion of each one concentrated
in
a few square metres; the
emptying of scanned existence and therefore of the illusory certitude of
existing: it is this
that involves the loss and depersonalization in
the representation.
In this it is necessary
to strengthen the idea or the representation of this idea.
The individual is Indivisible by definition. If the depersonalizing void
is discovered, this is not
thanks to – or not only
thanks to – a skilled sadist, but it is only because it has been pushed back
again in the unconscious
– proper Nothingness; it has been materialized, that experience of oneself
has come about, which
had been locked
up until
that moment (a metaphor exposed in another text
by affinity comrade
Federico; I add when the key actually locks, one can notice an openness,
contradictorily). The induction or rather the fact of being induced to an extreme situation is the
purgatory of the Io,
which trembles at the idea to remain alone.
My general thesis is
that one should produce in oneself the Ego that does not lose itself or
assimilate
depersonalization or
attempts at breaking something that cannot be broken: the individual.
Our determination in
front of the possibilities offered by the search for the extreme also has this
advantage: it reveals us
our EGO, it allows us to be face to face with our EGO, to play with our
abyssal snakes in the
cave of our EGO.
With this I express a
critique to the exposition of splitting as exposed by my dear affinity comrade
Federico. But this is
not because there are wide or narrow possibilities that what he exposed can
actually happen.
The representation that
one gives of oneself can be altered or illusory – but this doesn’t mean
it is
less real – by the
experimentation of outside situations.
We can think about it –
with proud conviction – strong and invincible, but many of the struggles
outside ourselves can
show us the opposite; the representation of reality, in this case banal, fails
or
rather it reveals itself. Without being too much assuming, I’d like to explore
this field in order to
understand this
difference along with affinity comrade Federico.
To cross the ‘Threshold’
– a striking metaphor – of a penal institute is certainly in itself, in the
movement, an unnatural
gesture – as far as my individual experience is concerned.
But everything can be
brought back to anything or any gesture we assume it is like this. Every day
we cross thresholds we wouldn’t like to cross, and we cross
others willingly. The process of
assimilation and tyranny we do of
representation (there can be no assimilation without
tyranny,
if
we want to quote
Nietzsche, or if we want to disturb another Egoist – vulgarly remembered and
quoted now – ideas and
therefore what is mine can grab, dominate and destroy is my own.)
However, how can we
doubt about Federico’s exposition of an alleged divisibility of the individual
when we are in front of
a ‘living death’?
The Threshold, the
marked sense of frustration of living a situation we didn’t look for, personal
rejection of coercion
and authority revives the field where the individual loves himself and where
he runs and spends his
inexhaustible days.
Involuntary isolation
is
the extreme condition where the individual, paradoxically, talks to himself
and unveils his essence.
The jailers – those who push to crossing the depersonalizing threshold –
unconsciously give an
instrument for an individualist end. However, what characterizes abatement
is simple. As he is an
indivisible individual, the individual defeated by Force, which represses him
in his muscles and
bones, fells that his representation of himself and therefore of his
indomitable
Ego get slandered in
this way.
The affinity comrade
with whom I’m developing these elements knows what I mean, a strong
personality absolutely
doesn’t fear life, it just feels resentment for life.
If the body suffers the
mind inevitably also suffers; if a body determined by the outside suffers a
limit, the Ego also
suffers.
This is
depersonalization, to push back anything possible in another world.
Depersonalization occurs
when a body defeated by an external force reduces itself in its impotence
to be subjected to the
imposed limit, whereas our nothingness takes refuge in another world – in an
act of rebellion or as a
simple vent valve. In other words, one lives Christianity’s resentment
towards life.
In its nature, the
redemptive Cell is absence of distraction from oneself.
This is the big oxymoron
that presents itself in the redemptive cell: on the one hand, to be revealed
– openness; on the other hand to
escape from it – closure.
The difference with the
outside is this. In the Cell there’s no hope to cling to if not in the abyss of
one’s own Ego.
Can one’s own Ego live
without external relations? Does it feed itself or does it eat the relations it
represents to itself?
These questions, however, refer to other speculations, which perhaps we will
examine in other texts.
Silence is the surrounding form.
In that very Silence the echo of the Ego occurs.
Is it the vision as a way of escape from the existent or is it the
other world that is revealed?
They may say that we are
‘mad’, we embraced madness in an amoral embrace and found ourselves
wrapped in an
irrepressible enjoyment of ourselves.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario