At the other end of the space of culture, although owing to its symmetrical position and very close, is the poet, who for known and reasonably foreseeable daily differences finds hidden forms of relationship of things, their blurry similarity. For conventional signs and in spite of them, he picks up another, deeper, resembling those o the days when through a universal likeness of things shone the words: Sovereignty Identical, so difficult for the expression, obscure in its language, the distinction of characters. Apparently, this is due to the close proximity of poetry and madness in Western culture of our time. Ho it's not o is the old Platonic idea of inspired nonsense. It a sign of a new perception language and things. On the roadside this knowledge that separates beings, signs and the like, madman, as if trying to limit his power, assumes the function of homoerotism; he gathers together all the characters and gives them a resemblance that never ceases to grow. The poet says the opposite function; it takes the allegorical role; looking at the language of signs, on their clearly defined differences he hears "another language," deprived of words and intelligible speech, the language similarities. The poet brings the similarity close to expressing it signs, madman all the signs gives the similarity which they, in the end is obscured. Thus, both of them being on the outer edge of our culture and yet close to its the main lines are in the "boundary" of the situation -- the situation of the marginalized and deeply archaic shape, where -- their words continually gain its strange power and the possibility of contestation. Between them opens the space of such knowledge, in which, due to a fundamental divide in the Western the world, the question will be already not the likes of o, and only o identities and differences.
At the other end of the space of culture, although
ReplyDeleteowing to its symmetrical position and very close,
is the poet, who for known and reasonably foreseeable daily
differences finds hidden forms of relationship of things, their blurry
similarity. For conventional signs and in spite of them, he
picks up another, deeper, resembling those o
the days when through a universal likeness of things
shone the words: Sovereignty Identical, so difficult
for the expression, obscure in its language, the distinction of characters.
Apparently, this is due to the close proximity of poetry
and madness in Western culture of our time. Ho it's not
o is the old Platonic idea of inspired nonsense. It
a sign of a new perception language and things. On the roadside this
knowledge that separates beings, signs and the like, madman,
as if trying to limit his power, assumes the function of
homoerotism; he gathers together all the characters and gives them
a resemblance that never ceases to grow. The poet says
the opposite function; it takes the allegorical role; looking at
the language of signs, on their clearly defined differences he hears
"another language," deprived of words and intelligible speech, the language similarities.
The poet brings the similarity close to expressing it
signs, madman all the signs gives the similarity which they, in
the end is obscured. Thus, both of them being
on the outer edge of our culture and yet close to its
the main lines are in the "boundary" of the situation --
the situation of the marginalized and deeply archaic shape, where --
their words continually gain its strange power and
the possibility of contestation.
Between them opens the space of such knowledge, in
which, due to a fundamental divide in the Western
the world, the question will be already not the likes of o, and only o
identities and differences.