At the beginning of last week I attended the public lecture of Alain Badiou in Auckland. He spoke about things that I find relevant to my obsession: writing. In what follows I will try to rethink his thoughts from this perspective of mine, and see if I'm any good at linking his ideas (which are mostly about mathematics, politics, and arts) to writing. [And just to keep the necessary distance, I must say that this is not a lesson in philosophy. I could not. I wouldn’t dare.]
Badiou's
lecture was built around an quote from Jacques Lacan: "The Real is the
impasse of formalization." Now, to start with, one will have to
recapitulate, perhaps, one's understanding of the Real (not to be confused with
'reality,' which is a different matter altogether).
The Real
The Real,
that which resists signification, is what exists anterior, exterior, and independent
of the human subject and language. It's what is inexpressible, unsayable,
unrepresentable. It is that which we are not even aware of, since it lives
outside our awareness as well. But it's there. The Real is always there. It has
always already been there. We come upon it by accident (what Badiou calls
'event'). And when we do, we come to a profound and shattering realization: we
find out that we have been following the wrong show; that the signs we have
created are somewhat inappropriate; not wrong in the sense of mistaken, but in
the sense of limited – and limitative at the same time. It's like what happens
to a lump of rock when it is turned into a statue. Before the statue there's
only the rock. Better still, before the statue there is the mountain with the
rock imbedded in it. And this is where the story starts.
Paper, scissors, rock
Before the
rock was the mountain, but I don't want to think of this mountain as a finite
entity: Mount Rushmore, or Mount Killimanjaro, or Mount Everest, or anything else
– take your pick. I want to think of the mountain as something indefinite,
something that has no real borders, no limits, something which cannot be put
into a category, cannot be turned, for instance, into an object of art;
something which, to use a better word, cannot be formalized. Not yet, that is.
Source: Marli
Miller |
And so,
along the same line of reasoning we can say that, before the human gesture,
this rock existed as part of the mountain. The mountain was a multiplicity
containing the rock as an element of itself – an undifferentiated one but still
there; hidden but there.
Source: Wikimedia |
The artist's turn
We can,
obviously, go further with this. Our rock, just separated from the multiplicity
in which it existed before, is taken to an artist, who wants to make a sculpture
out of it. He/she does so, and out of the rock comes a statue. Even more
obviously than in the affair of the rock, here too we are dealing with a case
of signification. And it's probably easier to see how the statue, the finished,
polished, man-made object is, in relation to the rock, what the rock was in
relation to the mountain. In the rock, the statue existed as a potentiality.
The rock had in itself this special virtue, hidden, not yet brought to light,
not yet materialized, of becoming, one day, the statue we are admiring now.
We can say
that the rock, in relation to the statue, is something akin to the Real. It is
the Real in the sense of being anterior, exterior, and independent of the rock.
Anterior in the sense of having existed before the statue; exterior in the
sense of being larger than the statue – containing the statue, as it were; and
independent in the sense of existing outside of any intention of the statue (if
that were even possible) to become an artefact.
The statue
was potential in the rock, but that potentiality becomes apparent only after
the artist has finished it. In order for us to have an ‘aha’ moment, we need an
artist who has finished his work. So we can say that it is with the event of
the statue's coming to life that we realize that it has always already been
there, as a possibility, as a virtual materialization.
Source: GoPixPic |
Events and impasses
Badiou talks
a lot about events, which he considers to be the most important (and original,
thus far) thing to be said about Being. In Badiou's philosophy, about
objects/things (sculptures, for instance) one cannot say that they are. Instead, one has to say that they happen. They are the result of events.
And these events offer us glimpses of what the Real might look like. But
there's a major aspect to be mentioned here. An event is not a sole
possibility. It is only one
embodiment, one possibility, out of an
infinity of other possibilities.
The point in
the case of our statue is this: the piece of rock from which it emerged could
have ended up as anything else. As a representation of a dog, as another lump
of rock, as chips scattered about, as a block of any shape, as a failed
sculpture. It's in this mass of possibilities that we find the
complexity/multiplicity of Being (the being of the rock as well as the being of
the world). And it's here that we find out the truth about human action: that
we, in essence, put a limit to the complexity of the world every time we
perform an act of separation (the way we did it in the case of the statue).
So what does
it mean to say, with Lacan, that "the Real is the impasse of
formalization"?
Formalization
is the phenomenon of turning the rock into a statue: the drawing of limits to a
thing that appeared, in the first instance, to be infinite. Every time we
create something we produce events. But at the same time, we limit the immense
field of potentialities that existed in Being. In relation to this, the Real,
which presents itself as an incomprehensible surplus, is that which cannot be
formalized; cannot be put into forms; cannot be made into objects (of art, of
use, of purpose). In other words, it raises an impasse in front of the human
agent precisely at the moment when he is engaged in a rapport with the same real.
It does so as a reminder. The agent is reminded, with every act of creation,
that the Real is an impossibility, that no matter how hard he tries, there’s no
way he can attain the Real.
When you
know you can't represent the unrepresentable, you are stuck; it feels like
there's no way forward, towards further signification (the statue has taken the
place of all other possible statues), neither backward (one cannot recreate the
rock by putting together all the pieces that made its previous structure). And this
is the impasse.
Source: Davidson College |
And writing
All of the
above can be said about writing as well. Writing operates on language the way
the artist operates on the lump of rock. Through writing, things come out of
language, which were not imagined before. Words are made apparent when they are
turned into written signs. Otherewise, when they are still in the spoke form,
they resemble the world too much to pose any major question about their
validity. Words thus written represent the formalisation of language. Of
course, language too behaves in relation to the world in the way the rock
behaves in relation to the mountain: it is not a perfect rendering of the
world; it is only a fragmented entity, a being from within Being – a phenomenon
that proves the multiplicity of the world and its unrepresentability.
What would
writing be without language? A system of signification without a referent. But
what would language be without writing! So much more, so more impregnated with
itself!
No comments:
Post a Comment