Messages to the Other

Messages to the Other

Messages Delivered


Subj: : post cards FROM BEYOND
Date: : Fri, May 26, 1995 23:20 PDT
From: : psbauman@xxx
To: : tamara@xxx (Tamara Tracy Ja)
CC: psbauman@xxx (Earl Jackson)
Mail*Link(r) SMTP post cards FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE
First I fought for meaning, now I have too much of it. I disappear from
a position too full or empty to reveal the extent of my need. I’m
Margery following a god through a rainy city. The rapture is mine, mine
the attempt to talk herself into existence. Robert Gl ck, Margery Kempe


Roger/Margery could have given Derrida so much more than a dirty post
card of Plato and Socrates couldn’t s/he? I can’t imagine what
would have happened to their intercoursing discourses during a kinky
conversation online. Each casting desire through these screens like one-way
mirrors, like messengers standing as post-ed emblems of each respective
voice (`In the beginning, in principle, was the post‘). Perhaps Derrida would
have found something more interesting to say than „Before all else it is a
question of turning one’s back….To turn one’s back is the analytic
position, no?“ (The Post Card, „Envois,“ 178).

My wishful thinking seems to have created some bad metaphors.
Don’t punish me,
-paul


From: Steve
To: e jackson
Subject: Time:5:03 PM
OFFICE MEMO our conversations Date:12/14/94
Earl!
That’s great that your gallies arrived and I’m glad you’re happy. And
yes, I’m excited for you. Your long message raised a lot of points, many of
which I think are more about your relationship with yourself than with me.
But about you and me, I think the problems come from both sides. I would
have been very sad if you had died; I would have missed you very much. I
don’t know whether saying that is enough or whether you believe me. Although
I understand and respect your decision not to tell me about your jaw
problem, I wish you had. However true your explanations are (and I’m
sure they are), in this overdetermined relationship of ours the effect of
not telling me was to create a situation where your suspicion that I didn’t
care was confirmed. (Curiously enough, however, it also failed to risk
the ultimate confirmation: that you would tell me and I would ignore you.)
Now I can say that I’m glad your OK, but it does have a kind of attenuated,
after-the-fact quality. But it is sincere. A world without Earl would
be a lot poorer for me and many other people.

love (if you can sign them that way so can I),
Steve


Date: Thurs. Jun 1, 1995 12:33 PST
From: Yum@xxx
To: earl
Hi, Earl. First of all I wanted you to know that by looking at myself in the screen and seeing the words appear in front of my image it gives me a weird paranoid kind of feeling, as if I’m supposed to have some kind of meaning in my words. . . . Just when I thought that this whole writing on the internet thing was supposed to erase the physical image of the self from communication. . . . Goes to show you, never count on anything.


From: D.
To: Earl
Re: Differing Expectations

I was astonished at receiving your commentary on my paper guts. After the initial shock wore off, it was apparent that my desires and your expectations had nothing in common. When I gave you those pages, they were only preliminary thoughts in a crude stage. I’m sorry that you spent time on identifying all the structural faults in the paper and sorry for myself for waiting so long in postponing work on the paper pending your feedback. All I had hoped for was a general commentary, wondering if I was heading in the right direction. (This is my very first paper – 5-6 pages.) I was aware that my work-in-progress would have such things disagreeable antecedents, non-sequitors and , fragments. In the next lifetime, I hope to remember not to submit anything so raw for your perusal. (That is of course, that I’m not reincarnated as a hamster. It would hard to hold a pen in that form.)I was able to decipher only about half of what you wrote. Hmmm Could you be trying to provoke a paranoid response?Yours, D.


Subj: its a semaphore
Date: Fri, Feb 2, 1996 13:55 PST
From: jakeadam@xxx
To: Unknown Pleasures Group
cc:Earl Jackson

Mail*Link(r) SMTP its a semaphore

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Michael Cs Orick wrote:

what i was vaguely alluding to when i made some blanket statement about language and such was not that there is some unmediated communication
(unmediated by language or some signifying system) but that not all thoughts are mediated. i for one know that often i feel like there is something i wish to express, something i feel or wonder about that i cannot communicate because there is no language for it, there has been no space in the langue that we know to hold some thoughts.

I agree entirely, that there are ‚gaps‘, or spaces in our signifying systems , when we cannot communicate, because there „is no language for it“ . . . what do you think these gaps are? Given the american spectacle’s penchant for inventing words, thse spaces seem to be problems, states of being which must, at all costs, be codified anto language. (a trite
example, but what did they call spindoctors before they called them spindoctors?-i chose this example because one often finds that they are the ones who invent words and terms, in their pursuit of power) I’m not saying this right, but is there some urge (not the right word) in our new world to codify, explain everything, not to let the slightest feeling or emotion slip by without attaching to it a name? Is it tied to the expansion of mass media, capitalist culture, the empirical drive to subsume all experience, give everything a name?
Naming confers upon the namer a power over the named. Is it a desire to attain the Real ( thru the Symbolic) that confers an endless naming project onto our linguistics/subjectivity?


Go To the Guide – click HERE