corporeal order.doc

8/14/2019 Corporeal order.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporeal-orderdoc 1/13

CORPOREAL ORDER by Chris Martin

No balance, no right angles, no parallel lines, no circles—in effect, no geometry.

O!ARD A PRO"#$#ONAL DE%#N##ON O% D#$E&'#L#(R#'M

)hat certain *i+ergence, that ne+er finishe* *ifferentiation, that openness e+er to be

reopene* beteen the sign an* the sign.-

—Marice Merlea/Ponty

)hings *irectly as they are0 impermanently in+ol+e* in an infinite play of

interpenetrations.-

—1ohn Cage

)A 2in* of il*ness, pi+ots of npre*ictability, elements hose tra3ectories, connections,

an* ftre relations remain npre*ictable.-

—Eli4abeth 5ros4

)A pliable an* potentially infinitely *i+erse set of energies, hose capacities an*

a*+ances can ne+er be pre*icte*.-

)he protracte* *istrbance of e6ilibrim.-

— %rie*rich Niet4sche

)he continos process of positi+e *esire.-

)A continos, self/+ibrating region of intensities hose *e+elopment a+oi*s any

orientation toar* a clmination point or e7ternal en*.-

)#t has neither beginning nor en*, bt alays a mi**le 8milie9 from hich it gros an*

hich it o+erspills.-

—Dele4e an* 5attari

)he monmental march hich has bt itself for en*-

)%nctioning incoherency, *isor*er in action-

— Pal "al:ry



)he intolerable secret of being-

—5eorges (ataille

E6ilibrim *enotes a still point. Dise6ilibrim necessitates a forar* mo+ement, aninertia, the ftre becoming the present, perpetally in process.

E6ilibrim is a pro+isional an* abstract strctre, a falsification of the real that ser+esthe orl* of appearance. he falsity of e6ilibrim is the *issimlation of peace.

E+eryhere, this false peace para*o7ically threatens to obliterate bo*ies0 real bo*ies,

ontological bo*ies, bo*ies in the mi*st of becoming.

#nstea*0 no peace, no balance, no stillness, no silence—in effect, no nothing. !hat is is.

Or, more accrately, hat is is becoming.

Dise6ilibrim is the shape of this becoming0 forar* yet obli6e, ine7orable yetnpre*ictable, in+isible yet +isceral, *estrcti+e yet creati+e. Contra*iction is not

prohibite*, it is inherent. his is Niet4sche;s affirmation0 E+erything is permitte*< hereis no *ialectic, no parallel opposition—all is asymmetrical. Dise6ilibrim is a fiel* of

mo+ement here interpenetrations florish, +ectors +erge, an* coinci*ence in*ces the

sitation of becoming to the sense/orl* of the bo*y.

hogh *ise6ilibrim perpetally recrs, fore+er o+erspilling only to retrn, it has

nothing to *o ith circles. he mi**le is a 4one of +eers, of npre*ictable lrches an*

4ags that ne+er loo2 bac2. rth loo2s only bac2ar*s, hereas the real—*ise6ilibrim —is fore+er facing forar*s= not simply facing, bt barreling, hea*long, ne+er straight

bt alays obli6e.

No balance, no right angles, no parallel lines, no circles—in effect, no geometry.

hin2 breath0 an ine7orable process of regeneration, repetiti+e yet +ariable—yo breathean* in breathing change, yo li+e an* yo *ie, asymmetrically.

hin2 bloo*0 a ceaseless 3orney, alays forar*s bt ith tiny bac2aters—the bloo* is

the me*im of the bo*y, its mi**le gron*, it preser+es an* is replace*, the bo*y an* the bloo*, cell by cell, mtally mtating.

E6ilibrim is *epen*ent on sight. $eeing separates, pnctates, isolates, inclcates,abbre+iates, obliterates. $eeing creates a form bilt on e*ges, a +iolence of e7actness, a

2nife sense. E6ilibrim is impossible ithot the abstraction of the eye, hich cts at a

*istance.

Dise6ilibrim is *epen*ent on nothing short of e7istence. #t pri+ileges toch, the haptic,

mo*es of feeling o+er mo*es of seeing. More than toch e+en it pri+ileges the



synesthetic. Dise6ilibrim incorporates. Dise6ilibrim interpenetrates. #t acts ith

intimacy, pro7imity, responsibility.

No hierarchy, only mo+ement. Only becoming. Only of.

)Don;t orry."oice imposes or*er. %rom abo+e.

$omeone else;s +oice.

'sing +iolence first an* then se*ctionor +ice/+ersa.

he mother;s +oice an* then the father;s +oice.

he netral +oice of sciencefamiliar as a lllaby.-

—Elaine E6i, Ripple Effect

)A 2nole*ge that col* ac2nole*ge its genealogy in corporeality ol* also

necessarily ac2nole*ge its perspecti+ism, its incapacity to grasp all, or anything in its

totality.-

—Eli4abeth 5ros4, "olatile (o*ies

)&'E$#ON0 here are neither *i+isions of the >can+as; nor >frame; to be obser+e*?

AN$!ER0 On the contrary, yo mst gi+e the closest attention to e+erything.-

—1ohn Cage, $ilence

)hat the right angle is a >goo* gestalt; an* an angle of @ *egrees a >ba* gestalt; hasnothing to *o ith e7perience.-

—Pal $chil*er, he #mage an* Appearance of the Bman (o*y

)he 6estion is fn*amentally that of the bo*y—the bo*y they steal from s in or*er tofabricate opposable organisms.-

—5illes Dele4e an* %eli7 5attari, A hosan* Plateas



CORPOREAL ORDER

Or, perhaps, it is a fear of mintia, a terror in confronting the tiny *istrbances an* +age+eers of *ifference oscillating near the bare core of the moment of the bo*y. !hen # as

a chil* # refse* to belie+e my breathing as ine+itable or that # *i* it ithot any patent

aareness. # as right an* # as rong. he bo*y is an e7cess, *oes e7cee* s, bt itremains at all points something e *o. his is hy $pino4a an* Niet4sche an* Dele4e

are aestheticians of the corporeal or*er. Or anti/aestheticians. hey insist on a bo*y that

*oes, e+en if they arent certain e7actly hat it is that it *oes.

An* hat abot breath? (reathing is clearly something a bo*y *oes. imerer LaMothe

locates breathing at the hori4on of the bo*ys becoming throgh *ance. $he rites0

)(reathing is a 2inetic pattern of tension an* release, creation an* *estrction. #t isacti+ity throgh hich e recreate orsel+es at e+ery moment.- he bo*y is the milie

of becoming. An* *ise6ilibrim, a force in opposition to balance an* stability, is the

milie of the bo*y. $imply by breathing e enact a process of *estabili4ation, of re/

creation. #t is fortnate for s that no matter ho gaping the glf—hat (ataille termsthe )strange *istance-—e erect beteen orsel+es an* or bo*ies, e ne+er cease to

breathe.

)he bo*y/image e7pan*s beyon* the confines of the bo*yhe +oice, the breath, the

o*or, the feces, menstral bloo*, rine, semen, are still parts of the bo*y/image e+enhen they are separate from the bo*y.- 8Pal $chil*er9

hogh terribly poerfl as i*eology, separation/by/image remains remar2ably flimsy

hen interrogate* by ontology. $eparation *eman*s a stear*ship, or orse, anonership of the bo*y= it becomes something one has, something one mst sb3gate an*

*iscipline. (t the bo*y e+er an* alays resists. he first step in correcting the false

stear*ship of the bo*y is to realign the min* an* bo*y, to recogni4e that the min* is, infact, the bo*y. An* +ice/+ersa. hen the bo*y becomes something one is. %inally, to

engage the corporeal or*er, one mst recogni4e the bo*y as something one *oes. his

instittes great personal responsibility, not to control the bo*y, bt to perform it, to accessthe e7cess an* atten* to the *ise6ilibrim of the bo*y, mo+ing from ithin its latent,

thogh thoroghly potent choreography.

!ithin is a or* of paramont importance to the corporeal or*er. $o is of. $o is mi**le.he corporeal or*er cra+es terms that reac6aint one ith the real. Let;s begin at the

beginning of the mi**le. At the mi**le of the beginning. Alrea*y. # am beginning ith

the premise that it is alrea*y happening, hich is concomitant to the premise that it isalrea*y changing. $o lets begin ith a 6estion0 hats happening?

!e are complsi+ely or*ering the orl*. #t is a matter of aesthetics. #t is a matter ofchoices that ha+e been sbsme* by a system of aesthetics so sccessfl that e *ont

e+en 2no it e7ists. #t is Debor*;s spectacle, bt a specific +ersion of it, mch ol*er than

the postmo*ern orl*. Merlea/Ponty sggests the term )reflecti+e or*er.- Regar*less

of hat e call it, it is a system pre*icate* on the era*ication of bo*ies. Consi*er



other bo*ies in the interest of its on pro*ction. #t is significant to note $chil*er;s

in*ebte*ness to psychoanalysis, for this mo*el of the bo*y remains tie* to Lacan;s mirror

stage= only it escapes the fon*ational narcissism of the psychoanalytic )i*eal ego- byinterrogating its integrity to e7pose *islocations an* interpenetrations.

An* hat, after all, is the *anger of an i*eal ego? !hat, at the limit of conterintition,is the *anger of a )stable, nifie* i*entity-? he anser lies in the fiction it is bilt on,

the blac2 hole point of absence it mo+es aron*0 separation. As Debor* states,

)separation is the alpha an* omega of the spectacle.- An* hat is the ltimate +ehicle ofseparation? $ight. $ight alone of all the senses is separate an* maniplati+e. $mell an*

taste are intrinsically synesthetic. och e7ists only in pro7imity. Bearing is something

that happens to s an* cannot be simply sht off. o consi*er ho sight pro+i*es access

to separation, e mst focs or interrogation on the image. An* for this e ill nee* afire.

!hen the first homini*s e+ol+e*, some three million years ago, they ere three

sbor*inate a*aptations an* one sperior a*aptation aay from becoming )hman- in theay e n*erstan* it to*ay. he three sbor*inate a*aptations are as follos0 bipe*al

mo+ement, nimble han*s, an* bigger brains. he first, pright al2ing, set the stage foror obsession ith a particlar form of hierarchy, a +ertical hierarchy. !e not only

became +ertical beings, bt positione* or greatest tools, not yet n*erstoo* to be tools as

sch, at the ape7 of that +erticality0 or eyes an* or brains. he secon*, nimble han*s,ga+e s 2nole*ge of tools, of the poer of tools, an* ths, maniplation. #t pt the

orl*, literally, at or *isposal. As time ent on, it pt the orl* metaphorically at or

*isposal also. he last sbor*inate a*aptation, bigger brains, helpe* to frther the

seflness of the pre+ios to, bt col* not n*erta2e the final transformation alone.%or that e ol* nee* an elemental force.

%ire, itself a tool, alloe* s to *o to +ery important imme*iate things0 escape pre*ationan* eather. hese to forces remaine* the most crcial in limiting s to an animal

e7istence. Once e ere no longer at constant threat, e ha* time to *o something

8r9e+oltionary0 nothing. !e ha* time to sit an* stare an* let or bigger brains, ith theirincreasing 2nole*ge of maniplation, come p ith a fantastic, ne+er before or since

parallele* a*aptation0 imagination. #n time, it also became the ltimate tool.

At this e7act moment, art as born. he fiction at the beginning of fiction. he image,most commonly celebrate* in the ca+e paintings of %rance, became an abstracte*

representation of the orl*. !hat might seem li2e a fairly benign beginning can actally

be seen as a sort of Pan*ora;s bo7. Again, beare the *bios, *estrcti+e seflness ofthe image< 1st li2e the mirror ith its misrecognition, *isplacement, an* constrction of

the self, the abstracte* image of representation alloe* for a misrecognition,

*isplacement, an* constrction of the orl*. his secon* orl*, a representationalorl*, is the orl* of the spectacle. #t is an or*ere* orl*, resoltely hierarchical, here

2nole*ge of ontological trth is ma*e inaccessible an* beyon* tility. #f e ant to

approach anything resembling trth, e mst ac2nole*ge that life is bilt not on

abstract stability, bt on li+e* *ise6ilibrim.



#f it isn;t clear alrea*y, # am riting ith a particlar agen*a. # ant to *ispro+e the

notion that each is alone, separate, one isolato after another. (t let;s not coch this innegati+e terms. o negate separation is also to affirm the mltiplicity that each bo*y is,

or in Dele4ianF$pino4ian terms, *oes. !e mst atten* to the manner in hich bo*ies

mingle ith, coinci*e ith, interpenetrate, an* most importantly compose one another.his in+ol+es a *epartre from the reasonableness of abstraction, a *i+ergence from the

symbolism of spectaclarity. #t is a mo+ement that perpetally retrns s to the mi**le

here e ha+e alays been. #t is an abolishment, perhaps only temporarily, of the*isplacement of the bo*y. Ontologically, it is a recognition of placement.

#n this acti+ity, # thin2 there is a potential for something tremen*osly ethical. hrogh a

pri+ileging of mo+ement, *ifference, *ise6ilibrim, e commit orsel+es to amonmental tas2, a monmental attention. (y recogni4ing the primacy of the choice for

or*er, for a particlar 2in* of or*er, e can ma2e ne choices. here is no certainty or

e+en li2elihoo* that this opportnity ill be met ith better choices, bt # thin2 it is a

measre of great hope. he bo*y is a great hope0 local, li+e*, *ynamic, spontaneos,npre*ictable.

As 1ohn Cage says, )Go mst gi+e the closest attention to e+erything.- #s this possible?

No. #s it possible to form a complete n*erstan*ing of the bo*y? No. #s it possible to

form a complete n*erstan*ing of the real? No. Mst e fill in the holes of orn*erstan*ing? 5oo* 6estion. )he bo*y,- says Eli4abeth 5ros4, )has remaine* a

conceptal blin* spot.- #n this statement, she points primarily to the trappings of

min*Fbo*y *alism. his is the *anger. 5ros4 arns of )the ontological

incompleteness- of the hman bo*y an* its )amenability to social completion, socialor*ering, an* organi4ation.- he bo*y, in its e7cess, hich is simltaneosly its

incompleteness, allos for conceptal reconstrctions that frther *istance s from the

real. !hat e *on;t n*erstan* abot the bo*y lea*s s to shir2 the bo*y altogether,creating a secon* bo*y, an abstract bo*y, hich can loo2 bac2 pon the first or simply

preten* it *oesn;t e7ist. Con+enience an* reason ha+e 2ille* the bo*y an* replace* it

ith a false +ersion of itself easily maniplate* by Cartesian thoght.

hs e are thrst into the realm of the spectacle. hs, as Debor* rites, e sffer the

*ongra*e of )being to ha+ing to mere appearing.- Or bo*ies get sc2e* *ry, stretche*

flat, hel* in front of s li2e a can+as. Or, in more contemporary terms, li2e a screen. Or bo*ies become trappe* in an artifice of the image. An* hat lies at the center of this

*eath *ri+e toar* spectaclarity, this )perfection of separation ithin hman beings-?

An i*ea. A choice. An aesthetics. !e belie+e that e can, throgh artifice an*abstraction, create a better orl* than the real one e are gi+en. Debor* offers se+eral

terms0 )image of harmony,- )still center,- )a falsification of life.- (ataille calls this

choice )a refsal of the offere* con*ition.- Be calls man, )the animal that negatesnatre.-

he choice that lies at the core of the spectacle is the choice to 3*ge stability, integrity,

an* balance as preferable, e+en if they are born from complete an* tter abstraction. he



choice is to fabricate peace e+en if it means )the impo+erishment, ensla+ement, an*

negation of real life.- his is hy *ise6ilibrim is so crcial to the corporeal or*er0 it is

the other choice. #t lies, seemingly *ormant, in the acti+ity of the real, patiently aitingto be recogni4e*. One hint of *ise6ilibrim, one afting hiff, an* the spectacle

crmbles li2e a thin layer of a7 on a a2ing han*. #f the *eep energy of *ise6ilibrim

approaches too near the spectacle, it pops li2e a balloon. #f the first choice as to *enythe real an* shir2 *ise6ilibrim, corporeal or*er *eman*s that one retrn to that choice,

to choose *ifferently.

An* to choose *ifferently, e mst see *ifferently. Bo *oes one recperate sight from

its *estrcti+e complsions? he anser lies partially in the or2 of Merlea/Ponty,

ho posits a )*oble/belongingness- of the bo*y, hich is at once sb3ect an* ob3ect, a

seer an* the +isible. Be rites0 )!e ha+e to re3ect the age/ol* assmptions that pt the bo*y in the orl* an* the seer in the bo*y.- he bo*y is of the orl*= the seer is of the

bo*y. his being of, the )reciprocal insertion- of the bo*y in the orl* an* +ice/+ersa,

obliterates the fiction that entities are irre+ocably separate, that clear *elineations can be

*ran to create a +ertical hierarchy of or*er. Or inherent of/ness rns obli6e, mar2s a perpetal 4ag in the constittion of being.

Merlea/Ponty also posits an ine7tricable 6ality of toch in the +isible. Be rites0

)Each +isible is a ct ot of the tangible.- $ight borros the langage of toch, is

perhaps as ine7tricable from toch as taste is from smell. Part of folloing a corporealor*er means recogni4ing the pro7imities of sight, the ay seeing is tantamont to

toching, an* ho these interpenetrations bin* s in an open system of becoming.

An* hat is becoming? !ell, as Dele4e an* 5attari state, )(ecomings are alaysspecific.- his is important. he corporeal or*er is chiefly pre*icate* on a retrn to the

bo*y, bt hat 2in* of bo*y? A male bo*y? Per 5ros4;s emphasis in "olatile (o*ies,

corporeal or*er shol* not be n*erstoo* as i*eal or ni+ersal. Different bo*ies pro*ce*ifferent or*ers an* there is no essentiali4ing possible to a+oi* se7al *ifference.

Corporeal or*er, in fact, shol* be seen as flly embracing se7al *ifference at all points

along its sbtle an* comple7 spectrm.

An ol* bo*y? A +irile bo*y? A se7ali4e* bo*y? An able bo*y? #t is a retrn to all an*

none of these bo*ies. #t is a retrn to hate+er bo*y yo are alrea*y ha+e. No, scratch

that, hate+er bo*y yo alrea*y *o. )#t is,- accor*ing to Dele4e an* 5attari, )a6estion of forces.- his is hy *isor*er is e7plicitly not hat e are tal2ing abot.

Disor*er implies a certain 2in* of 3*gment. his is not abot 3*ging the bo*y, or

limiting it by *efinition, or brac2eting it, or framing it, or in any ay separating it fromhat it can *o.

#n this, e prse hat 5ros4, spea2ing of Dele4e an* 5attari, terms )a rare,affirmati+e n*erstan*ing of the bo*y.- his approach to the bo*y pri+ileges

npre*ictability, mo+ement, +ariation, an* *ise6ilibrim. #s there *anger in this

affirmation? "ery mch so, bt this *anger is far preferable to the false peace an*

pnishing control of the reflecti+e or*er. 5ros4 rites0 )#f e *o not al2 in *angeros



places an* *ifferent types of terrain, nothing ne ill be fon*, no e7plorations possible,

an* things ill remain the same.- hogh 5ros4 is absoltely right, she misrea*s the real

*anger. !ithot ris2 e ill ne+er fin* or ay bac2 to the real, to hat alrea*y is, tohat the bo*y is alrea*y *oing.

Dele4e an* 5attari, of corse, ha+e mch to say abot ris2 an* e7perimentation. #t isine+itable that # shol* here in+o2e their )(o*y ithot Organs,- or (O. !hat ma2es

a (O is not a lac2 of organs, bt rather a lac2 of organi4ation= or, more accrately, a

lac2 of a certain 2in* of organi4ation. hey rail against organi4ational mo*els that pri+ilege interpretation or focs on hierarchical aesthetics. !hile they insist that one

shol* retain )a minimal le+el of cohesion- ith hich to )mimic the strata,- they

encorage one to mo+e past organi4ation an* toar* forces, interpenetrations, an*

intensities.

his is hat is so o+erhelmingly affirmati+e abot the (O. #t is an ac2nole*gement

that )$omething ill happen,- that, )$omething is alrea*y happening.- Dele4e an*

5attari attest0 )#t has nothing to *o ith phantasy, there is nothing to interpret.- !hat isthere to *isco+er is alrea*y there an* *oes not re6ire abstraction or artifice. #t is not

abot aesthetics, bt *esire. #t is not abot stability, bt *ise6ilibrim— )*ynamicten*encies in+ol+ing energy transformation.- #t is )the continos process of positi+e

*esire.- An* again, it is )a 6estion of forces.- #t is not abot separating, isolating, or

stopping. #nstea*, Dele4e an* 5attari encorage s to )connect, con3gate, contine.-

!here the corporeal or*er *i+erges from the (O is at the le+el of *epth. Dele4e an*

5attari insist on the flatness of mltiplicities an* a totality of those mltiplicities that

they call the plane of consistency, hich is )the otsi*e of all mltiplicities.- Not only*o e cringe at the concept of a necessary flatness, bt that e seem to be getting mire*

once again in a politics or physiology of the otsi*e. A corporeal or*er, a tre

*ise6ilibrim mst be pre*icate* on *epth. An*, crcially, e mst ac2nole*ge thenimprisonable e7cess that *epth pro+i*es. 5ros4 pts it ell0 )A 2nole*ge that col*

ac2nole*ge its genealogy in corporeality ol* also necessarily ac2nole*ge its

perspecti+ism, its incapacity to grasp all, or anything in its totality.- Choosing the bo*ymeans in+estigating an ntotali4able *epth, a *epth that changes an* mo+es an* e7cee*s

at all points. #f the bo*y is e+er a srface, it is, in the or*s of Merlea/Ponty, )a srface

of ine7hastible *epth.-

otality is also an important term for (ataille, bt ta2es on a +ery *ifferent form, more

along the lines of an intersecting plenm, a natral contigity of inconcei+able *epth that

in+ol+es all bo*ies. %or him, +ision is or ay of *etaching orsel+es from the totality,hich hants s ith its horror, hat he calls )the horror of being.- Be rites0 )!e ha+e

fashione* this hmani4e* orl* in or image by obliterating the +ery traces of natre.-

#n this ay, (ataille opposes a constrcte*, or*ere* e7istence to hat he terms the)hole bloo*y mess.- his mess might ell be +iee* as a pse*onym for corporeal

or*er. #n or*er to fin* or*er ami* the mess, hmans separate themsel+es from natre.

he separation here is a negation, a refsal, a prohibition. %or this to occr, man mst

harness an intimate re3ection, )generally mistrsting the bo*y,- an* the plenm that the



bo*y engages. Ontological trth is ths brie* n*er the abstract poer of the image,

becoming a frti+e thing, hat (ataille calls )the intolerable secret of being.-

he bo*y itself *oes not represent. !e, rather, represent the bo*y. An* e represent the

bo*y in or*er to get ri* of it. (t e ne+er 6ite achie+e this negation, becase there is

alays *esire, an* *esire, throgh its engagement ith the 3oyfl abn*ance of the bo*y, brings s bac2 to the fiction of separation, an* or *esire to reconnect ith the totality.

$chil*er asserts0 )he bo*y/image is a social phenomenon.- #s it a contra*iction that thecorporeal or*er is both ontological an* social? Contra*iction is crcial to the corporeal

or*er, as is coinci*ence, as is +ariation, as is mltiplicity, as is interpenetration. #f it isnt

both it isnt real. he instinct to separate is the instinct to 2ill. !hether by physical

+iolence or the +iolence of isolation an* neglect, separation betrays a lac2 of ontologicaln*erstan*ing. Not that being both entails a balance. here is an immanent asymmetry

to contra*iction.

hs the ne+enness of this essay, hich begins in the mi**le an* tra+els alays obli6e.his is not to say that there are not intimate connections beteen parts, bt that the

progression is sb3gate to the moment. here are *efinite processes of the bo*y, bthene+er yo 4oom ot from the specific to the systemic yo sffer the floo* of

abn*ance. !e are systems in )continos interplay- borne by a )continal flo-

8$chil*er9. he in*efinite, as2e mo+ement of these systems terrori4es s as e attemptto or*er or life in a ay that reflects the +ertical, *iscrete hierarchy of the spectacle.

$chil*er *escribes one of his patients0 )Be hate* e+erything that might *istrb the

symmetry of the bo*y. Be as afrai* of frea2s at the circs.-

Ah, yes, the frea2 sho—corporeal enconter e7traor*inaire. !hat *ras s to

hyperbolic corporeal *ifference? !hy the nee* for sch complicate*, yet transparent

attempts to shro* the frea2 in narrati+es of spectaclarity? 5i+en that the frea2 sho isso e7plicitly gron*e* in spectaclarity, *oes it possess a means to challenge the

spectacle? here are en*less 6estions srron*ing the frea2 sho. his is a measre of

its potential, its poer. %or at the core of the frea2 sho enconter is something thate7ists otsi*e langage, representation, an* *efinition0 ambigity.

#n e+ery instance of e7treme corporeal enconter there is a rec2oning ith the bo*y, a

rec2oning incommensrable ith langage. #t is this norgani4able core of the enconterthat *ri+es s, complsi+ely, to srron*, hi*e, maniplate, simplify, flatten, separate,

an* spectaclari4e the enconter throgh the me*iation of langage. his is hy there is

a secret imbe**e* ithin (ataille;s )intolerable secret of being.- (eing ill not beme*iate*. Each time e engage this secret, some of it stic2s, a little piece of or

aareness of the *ise6ilibrim of the bo*y gros, an* e are simltaneosly plle* an*

repelle*. !e become aare of the process of ab3ection. !e feel it ithin s.

he frea2 sho also necessarily engages the ac6isiti+e natre of the bo*y image.

!hether conscios of not, these hyperbolic enconters in+ol+e e7changes an*

pro*ctions, a psychological grafting of corporeal parts bac2 an* forth. #f the enconter



has tra*itionally been seen as a ni*irectional +ector flng from the a*ience at the mte

bo*y of the frea2, $chil*er helps *emonstrate ho there is a re+ersing n*ercrrent, a

strong corporeal *rift, hich may at least partially accont for the contra*ictorycomplsion an* replsion one e7periences.

(t let;s retrn to ambigity. Eli4abeth 5ros4, in line ith (ataille, refers tofrea2ification as a process of locating )intolerable ambigity.- One might arge that it is

not the e7tremes of corporeal *ifference that sccee* in transforming the +ieer, bt a

force* ac2nole*gment of an ambigity that e7ists at the core of all bo*ies.Para*o7ically, throgh the hyperbolic scale of the frea2 sho e are reconnecte* to the

6oti*ian fli*ity of *ifference. he *ifference of one necessarily retrns s to the

*ifference of all.

Ambigity is a crcial site for potential change. !e ha+e spo2en at length abot the se

of specific 2in*s of +isal or*er to simplify the orl* an* create false hierarchies

*epen*ent on a relati+e norm. here is a la4iness inherent in this ten*ency. A la4iness

an* a fearflness. An* there is an alternati+e +ersion of loo2ing an* attention that becomes acti+ate* by ambigity. #t places one in the mi**le of things, hich is stic2y.

As Dele4e an* 5attari rite0 )#t;s not easy to see things in the mi**le.-

Or la4iness lets s flit from sight to sight, content ith re*cing each conse6ent site to

its consmable content. (t ambigity has friction= it *oesnt ha+e a srface to sli*e offof. #n this momentary )stc2ness,- one is force* to confront an inner stc2ness, here

langage, representation, an* *efinition fail. Ambigity is ths a particlarly ontological

state, a mi**le from hich or e7perience spills o+er into itself, alays reconstrcting,

ne+er flly still or at peace. Ambigity is a remin*er of hat lies beyon* or before or belo or bestri*e the spectacle0 the real.

!hen 4ebra finches learn to sing, they *o not begin ith the first syllable of their song, bt ith one from the mi**le. All tre learning procee*s this ay, born ot of

helplessness an* confsion into the mi*st of a corporeal competency. Learning re6ires

*ise6ilibrim. Piaget, thogh clearly into7icate* by the resoltions of or*er, at leastrecogni4e* this. o learn, one mst enter the mi**le, that 4one of instability that allos

for transformations. An* e learn more, an* more constantly, than e col* e+er gess

at.

#t is fitting that here e retrn to the mi**le, here, as # ha+e repeate*ly note*, e

alrea*y are. he mi**le, as it is often misrepresente*, is not abot a mean. #t is not abot

a me*im +ale or a me*iating *e+ice. #t is not abot stasis an* it is not abot balance.Accor*ing to Dele4e an* 5attari, the mi**le is )by no means a+erage= on the contrary,

it is here things pic2 p spee*.-

(ataille, 5eorge. he Accrse* $hare, Ne Gor20 Hone (oo2s, IJJK.



Cage, 1ohn. $ilence. !esleyan0 !esleyan 'ni+ersity Press, IJI.

Debor*, 5y. he $ociety of the $pectacle. Ne Gor20 Hone (oo2s, .

E6i, Elaine. Ripple Effect0 Ne an* $electe* Poems. Minneapolis0 Coffee Bose Press,

.

5ros4, Eli4abeth. "olatile (o*ies. #n*iana0 #n*iana 'P, IJJ.

LaMothe, imerer. Niet4sche;s Dancers. Palgra+e, .

Merlea/Ponty, Marice. he "isible an* the #n+isible. E+anston0 Northestern

'ni+ersity Press, IJ@.

Niet4sche, %rie*rich. he !ill to Poer. Ne Gor20 "intage, IJ@.

$chil*er, Pal. he #mage an* Appearance of the Bman (o*y. Ne Gor20 #nternational'ni+ersities Press, IJ.

O!ARD A "OCA('LARG O% BE REAL

Act Affect Affirm Air

Alrea*y Ambigity Ami* Attention

(ecoming (o*y Coinci*e

Conse6ent Continos Contra*iction

Corporeal Depth Difference

Disclosre Dise6ilibrim Dynamic

Erpt E7cess E7perience %riction

Bappening Beat #mpro+ise

#n*eterminate #nterpenetrate #ntersb3ecti+e

#ntimate #n+isible #n+ol+e 1er2

1oy Local Mltiplicity Mtal

Necessary Obli6e Of Open



Participatory Perform Permeable

Phenomenal Place Presence Pro+isional

Plse &eer Recommence Rhythm

$imltaneos $itation $lip

$pontaneos e7tre 'ncanny

'npre*ictable "ariation

"eer !arp !eb !et !ithin

corporeal order.doc

Documents