places to search for lost time

8/14/2019 Places to Search for Lost Time

1/20

PlacestoSearchforLostTime.indd 1 15/12/2008 9:03:18 PM


2/20

a book to be read when desiring a space and people in-between theg r a p h i c a l , t y p o g r a p h i c a l , t e x t u a l a n d r e f e r e n t i a l e l e m e n t s2



3/20

a book to be read when acknowledging names presenta confused image of people - and of towns - an imagewhich derives from them, from the brightness or darknessof their tone, the colour with which it is painted uniformly,like one of those posters entirely blue or entirely red, inwhich, because of the limitations of the process used or bya whim of the deigner, not only of the sky and the sea are blue

or red, but the boats, the church, the people in the streets.

3



4/20

a book with its page-layout, typographical and graphical play

produces a frame that cuts across the text and its espousedmeanings, not to produce, in turn, a given set of multiple mean-ings, but to multiply the production of meaning itself. the ref-erence is no longer secured by the text but exists in that in-terstitial realm between the phonetic word and the type itself.

as Ellen Lupton and Abbot Miller writes:

the history of typography and writing could be written as

the development of formal structures that have exploredthe border between the inside and the outside of texts. a

amidst this in-between another form of communication is produced.

a. Lupton, Ellen & Miller, Abbot (1996) Design Writing Research: Writing on Graphic Design .London & New York: Phaidon Press. p.17

44



5/20

Daydreams are often situated in the built environment. But the houses and people thatappear in daydreams can become places and subjects that we can never quite map.They exist as constellations of memories, sensations and images that have dislodgedthemselves from the the unaffected subject. Ones beloved along with the places whichhouses ones beloved are cast outside of the Inside and Outside or subject andobject divide. In this mode of daydreaming one proceeds from an exteriority outside these spatial and subjectival divisions and journeys toward a centre that is not yet there.One views ones beloved from outside ones interiority.

Somewhere in-between ones textual musings and recollections of places one may haveonce inhabited or will inhabit, a beloved who is yet to come emerges.

a door... an entry-site...a method to reada pondering of places andones loved who are not yet here

555



6/20

Whence loving someone deeply we often lose sight of her. But this isa joyful thing because the demands for possession are expelled withthis expulsion of Cartesian perspective. Instead of possession there is asubmission of both the lover and his beloveds mind/body to an eternalevent of chance the universes unpredictable happenings that sustainslifes complexity. We who love give our bodies and minds up to theuniverses expansion from which new stars are born. The pensive questionregards which star will be forged in this process of creation? But the divinequestion is: why the question which star will be forged need be asked?

Place #1

6



7/20

We who love learn how to make mysterious wor(l)ds. Creativity as GillesDeleuze suggests is the operative word:

To fall in love is to individualize someone by the signs s/he bears or emits. It is to become sensitive to these signs,to undergo an apprenticeship to them It may be thatfriendship is nourished on observation and conversation, butlove is born from and nourished on silent interpretation. The

beloved appears as a sign, a soul; the beloved expressesa possible world unknown to us, implying, enveloping,imprisoning a world which must be deciphered, that is,interpreted. What is involved here, here, is a plurality of worlds; the pluralism of love does not concern only themultiplicity of loved beings, but the multiplicity of soulsor worlds in each of them. To love is to try to explicate , todevelop these unknown worlds that remain enveloped withinthe beloved. This is why it is so easy for us to fall in love withwomen who are not of our world nor even our type. It isalso why the loved women are often linked to landscapes thatwe know suf ciently to long for their re ection in a womanseyes but are then re ected from a viewpoint so mysteriousthat they become virtually inaccessible, unknown landscapes.[]There is, then, a contradiction of love. We cannot interpretthe signs of a loved person without proceeding into worlds

that have not waited for us in order to take form. That formedthemselves with other persons, and in which we are at rstonly an object among the rest. The lover wants his beloved todevote to him her preferences, her gestures, her caresses. Butthe beloveds gestures, at the very moment they are addressedto us, still express that unknown world that excludes us. The

beloved gives us signs of preferences; but because these signsare the same as those that express worlds to which we do not

belong, each preference by which we pro t draws the image of the possible world in which others might be or are preferred.

[]The beloveds lies are the hieroglyphics of love. The interpreter of loves signs is necessarily the interpreter of lies. His fateis expressed in the motto: To love without being loved. 1

77



8/20

To love is to demand from oneself the utmost form of faith: faith without promises. It is to re-evaluate the whole act of having faith. For how else area beloveds lies going to become the hieroglyphics of a love that expressesrelationships that eludes the heart? Whence we say we bear faith we infact, most often, mean we demand something in return. But true faith,as Abraham demonstrates, is having faith in nothingness. Nothingness is,however, not nihilism. It is a will to power, a will to an absolute potentialityin which anything can happen. Faith in nothingness is faith in nothing

predictable, or to say that which is outside of even what the most divinedoctrines of organized religions can offer. This faith speaks of Gods whooffer neither haven nor inferno damnation. Instead there are non-dualisticGods. AsSren Kierkegaard writes, faith believes in what it does notsee. 2 True faith for Kierkegaard is not what is irrefutably there, but thatwhich is ever only coming into existence. He elaborates:

No coming into existence can be necessary before it comesinto existence, since it would then be impossible for it tocome into existence; nor can it be necessary after it has comeinto existence, since it would then be impossible for it to havecome into existence. 3

Faith then is faith in that which is only understood as metabasis eisallo genos .4 It is faith in that which changes genetically not just a

proliferation of variations based on one immutable model but that whichchanges in genus. Nothing in this kind of faith can be measured insofar

metabasis exists. Faiths conclusion is really no conclusion at all.5

Who isthe beloved we bear faith in? She is nothing other than blocs of forces thecorporeal body, memories, letters and conversations emit forces, onceemitted, can group together as something entirely different, thus changingits own basis or kind.

Whence having faith in this absolute metabasis there is expressed a faithin ALL, in which the ALL is understood as inclusive of an all that isoutside of all calculative and categorial measures. To love is to love ALLthat can happen without demanding speci city. Following Kierkegaard I

draw a demonstration of this absurd faith: Perhaps Abraham had faith in

Place #2someone more than the God as ordained by the papalcy. Abrahams Goddoes not reveal anything to him, nor does Abraham asks, both God andMan waits for a time that is unspeci ed.

Perhaps the lover can learn from the father of faith. Perhaps the lover canhave faith in someone more than his beloved . But, this does not suggeststhe lover should not that he should nd for himself another beloved as if ones beloved is entirely exchangeable. That someone who is more thanhis beloved is still his beloved but simply his beloved who has differentiatedin kind. Likewise the lovers love for his beloved must also change in kind.This act of faith the lover can possess and nd delight in.

8



9/20

To love whilst bearing such faith is to forgo the return of a beloveds caressor gesture. One forgets the idealized image of the touch in order to conjureanother kind of sensation. In forgetting the past joys, these caresses andgestures turn into something strung between the corporeal and incorporeal.These caresses and gestures become touches that stings the esh of the lover in ways ngers and memories cannot; these touches are otherworldly. Yet,they are not phantom touches derived from the categorized or generalizedmemories of previous touches the lover had encountered. Rather they aretouches that the lover had not felt in the esh yet , touches that his beloved had yet made , but nonetheless touches that make his esh ache. These aretouches from the fingers of a beloved who is yet to come, fingers of a

body from a possible world that the lover has no clear perspective of.The lover echoes himself:

My beloved touches me whilst reaching back from

another star? Or, have I become a part of thisother star, swirling like an universal dust cloud through the terrain-corpus of my beloved while she, also like mad dancing dust, cut through me? In this Dionysian dance we speak not of subjects,objects or even inter-subjectivity but only of eventswhich ab/dissolves everything/one/place. Eventsare rightfully stars they are stars without form,which burn up quickly and become supernovas soas to give birth to new stars. To evoke memoriesis to turn the synapses darting through my braininto little supernovas, exploding into innumerable

shards of formless pictures of pasts yet to come.

The lover echoes himself to become part of the architecture, landscape, art,words, air and bodies that are gathering around his past, present and future.

Place #3

A possible world or other star in which the lover and his (yet-there) beloved (and her touches) conduct their incorporeal encounters/exchanges is a terra potenti . But what is a terra potenti ? It is nota place where the lover and his beloved may possibly inhabit oneday in the foreseeable future. We dispense with mere possibilitiesand may-bes because certainty deceives more than ambiguity.Terra potenti is not a country or era, apartment or age.

It is a space that remains forever in potenti.It is itself without form, or else its form relies entirely on theartfulness of the lovers ability to continually turn his memories of his

beloved into her constitutive forces (or signs) and re-assemble themotherwise. Terra potenti is necessarily all the spatio-temporalitiesthat the lover and his beloved can inhabit and/or become outsideAristolean actuality. As such it is always a space yet to come aspace, which form is always informe . There is no way we can ever remember memories that are yet to come. These are memories thatcome from an outside that has forgotten the internal-external duality.This is an outside that is even outside of thought. To be in icted

by the mnemonic forces of this outside is to push thinking beyondrecollection, to stir the practical act of thinking towards creation. 6

9



10/20

The lover relates to terra potenti so tenderly not because he can envisionit, but precisely because he cannot see it ever.Do we not adore a beloveds face more when we no longer canimage it with visual exactitude but when her face and even theroom she inhabits become sensations that appear involuntarily?And, are not these sensations not emerging in the act of writing and art-making? In encountering these sensations the work of art or the text

becomes as affective as the corporeal face and the architectural-materialroom. These sensations produce an incorporeal face and an immaterialroom, or otherwise potential places and bodies. This incorporeal face andthis immaterial room form the terra potenti that subsist in the loversactual practice of art-making and writing. Each word written, each conceptgathered expresses something more than their representational function.

Place #4It is this potentiality for something else that a lover may nd delight in.He nds delight in knowing such a space is already there in his acts; andhis acts are not merely procedures to represent this space. Space for him

become something produced amidst relational, experiential, material,architectural, textual and conceptual forces; space does not only belongto a pre-existing Cartesian order. Hence, he writes words and pages after words and pages in order make this space richer, increasing this spacesown potentiality for further change. Each word and sentence contributes tothe text he is working on by beginning over again in ever newer ways. this

beginning over contributes to the intensity and exponential n-dimensionof the terra potenti . Nothing in the practice of writing words is simplya matter of representation. Writing not only illustrates lifes complexity

but demonstrates the actual complexity in an instance of writing/reading.Why not heed Umberto Ecos advice on the power of ction, and ctionsattribution to lifes complexity:

If ctional worlds are so comfortable why not try to read theactual world as if it were a work of ction? Or, if ctionalworlds are so small and deceptively comfortable, why not tryto devise ctional worlds that are as complex, contradictory,and provocative as the actual one? 7

1010



11/20

The lover is a poet not because he can speak his heart. On the contrary itis because he can wrest his heart from clichs and throw it into the greatevent of chance, and begin to speak of something entirely unknown. Histool and source of power is not his heart but his pen. Lovers and belovedsall lie, but that is the beauty and endearing dimension of loves process of ction-ing. Ultimately to make and sustain ction testi es to loves abilityto sustain itself poetically. Fiction and lies constitute the indisputable realityand affectivity of people and stars in the process of being fabricated.

Often, the lover does nothing but the practice of writing. But the lover doesnot write in order to tell the world his joys and passions. Jean-FranoisLyotard notes that the practice of writing, besides representation, is amatrix on which a writers impressions and expressions are obstinatelymolded and which lends his writing its secret singularity. 8 This singularityis however not the writer or lovers voice, rather, it is a point where multiplevoices can emerge. The lover, in writing, creates himself as a son of other

stars. Lyotard continues to elaborate, Schizophrenia persists in the text.

Schizophrenic worlds and subjects attributes to a texts sovereignty.Here, a schizophrenic solitude in which a writer and his reader becomemultiple exists. The reader may very well hear the heros story as the lifeof another, but the hero or writers voice is intermingled with the readersas well as all the characters and personae the reader brings to his/her ownact of reading. Thus, Lyotard cleverly asks how a reader would know thevoice or sounds emerging to be truly ours if the voice in our throats isalready and always formed by the forces of other voices. For Lyotard,what we have in lieu of a subjective voice is a shared groan belongingto everyone and no one. 9

To write is thus not to share as per intersubjectival communication,but to affect ones reader with the powers and forces of writing itself.

11



12/20

Place #5

12

.us an inexplicable anxiety,

that which cannot be held. beloveds. Both bodies areecome whirlwinds of forcesut, nothing will ever settle,ature, which all bodies are

The text written about love is never extraneous to the act of loving. Sucha text expresses a love for loves potentiality. Such a love causes thetruth of being to murmur. 10 Where and when is my beloveds body, if notsubsisting in the geography that I am now indistinguished from? Indeed,how can it not be here now if it shakes me so violently that my voice startsto shatter?

The practice of writing is nothing other than to gather forces of pastmemories, current words and imageries into /through ones active body,so as to transform it, so as to enable ones body and mind to express

potentialities yet de ned. Writing can become a process whereby bodies/minds are conjoined and metamorphosed together. A corpus-intellectus

potenti is what the lover delights in and has faith in. We nd delight inthings we do not yet possess because they give us an inexplicable anxiety,not unlike a sublime joy when encountering that which cannot be held.

The lover holds neither his own body nor his beloveds. Both bodies aredecomposed into their constitutive forces and become whirlwinds of forcesthat can settle down into potentially anything . But, nothing will ever settle,for that is the nature of forces that constitute Nature, which all bodies areone and the same with.



13/20

Nature is a whirlwind of forces. Nature is the ultimate sublime, a pureevent, as Ignasi Sol-Morales following Lyotard, explains. Nature canalways open up to new worlds. However, it is not that Nature leads tonew worlds external to itself, but that Nature itself becomes an in nitudeof new worlds. Nature becomes outside of what it is. Nature itself in this

opening of /as new worlds opens up spaces of visual, auditory, or emotionalintensity to bring about a shock, an experience stripped of referencesthat may decomposes any preconception we may have of Nature itself. 11 In Nature there is no non-Nature and Nature proper. Nature is differrenceitself. Oppositions are irrelevant here. Nature constitutes the entirenature of difference without contradictions, oppositions and identity. 12

Differentiation bypasses the dialectic, or, as Luce Irigaray suggests, theopen expanse [that] contains nothing, except for the openness that opensand lets all things bloom within it. Nature is not something we can grasplike a perceptible horizon. In this zone of imperceptibility the lover and

his beloveds bodies, one and the same with Nature, are already within theopening, hence to write of love is to become open to becoming someone/thing else. 13

Nature is no more serene than it is chaotic like the battle of energy, themad rush of microbes and molecules, and the struggles of men-beasts.Are our bodies not coextensive with these practices of madness that isnatural life? Is not the practice of writing of ones beloved not part of

Natures mad surge of forces? In/as Nature swirling force-bodies areneither of the present, past or future, but are like time itself, here and

there simultaneously of the present and the potential pasts and futures. Love is a practice of this mad rush. It is a practice not of possession butof throwing oneself into Natures frenzy. There is nothing to proclaim for.There is no subject to speak from and to.The lover says without a mouth :

Yonder? Here, always already and still here. A slack throughout within her lights arms, which escort all

beginnings. She neither rises from nor sinks back into thehollow of the valleys. Horizontal, she is ajar in all dimensions

without ever leaving the threshold of her birth.14

13



14/20

Place #6His beloved is always in the process of her own re-birth. His beloved

becomes one and the same with the event of change that is Nature itself.And the only way the lover can attain union is to throw himself to the madrush of Natures inexplicable ways of change. There , he is in union withALL.

Is not valid that surrending oneself up to something without guaranteesan act of faith? Hence, the lover in forgoing possession of his body or his beloveds body demonstrates immanently the act of faith. He doesnot make a bargain with his beloved through the conventional means of inter-subjectival communication. His body is not given up to her, but tothe event of change. He seeks to place bodies back in the stream of time,which is the precise form of terra potenti . He throws everything he hasover to chance and potentiality. True love is love without returns, withoutever demanding to be entered into the reciprocal act of being-loved. Only

then can loving express the kind of utmost faith Abraham had for hisGod. Only then a beloved is no longer an object to be grasped orheld but is a being-event that envelops and transforms the lover.As Luce Irigaray writes, Once he has passed from inside her to outside.His boundaries will soon disappear. 15 Let us not speak of Is.

What happens when the lover and his beloved are beings-event? Whatdoes the lover do when encountering a being-event beloved whence hehimself is of such form?

In his (non)-engagement with his beloved, the lover learns that the signs,forces and memories his beloved emits are no longer representations of her. His task is no longer to trace where these signs, forces or memoriesoriginate but to devise a way to channel them into the creation of possibleworlds and times. The lover becomes an artist 16 who crafts spaces andtemporalities where there had not been any. 17 Here, the lover holds outhis own non-promised promise by speaking of a star-child of a star thathas yet settled from the universal dust. He holds out his innumerable

potentialities charted only by the exponential change of the universe thatis lled with the energy of time.

14

14



15/20

The lover is not a lonely man. Far from that he is lled with the joys of the universe; he fold ins everything the universe has to offer. Here, hecontends himself not with inter-subjectival banter, but enriches himself with the commingling of forces emitting from bodies, that are coextensivewith each other, with the bodies of texts, drawings, thoughts, material and

architecture. As D.H. Lawrence suggests, once the solid earth is goneyou slip into a timeless world where the souls of the all the dead arealive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other in nity. 18 Words and memories are no longer of the past, but come forth inthe present as blocs of sensations that turn our bodies and minds into thingswe can never predict. We, thus, attain in nitude through differentiation.We have step off into the other worlds of undying time. 19

We speak not of this or that time. We remember no past moments whenceall those past bodies and minds are turned into a mad surge of force

that is cutting through us at every instance. This past persists by its verydisappearance and reformation into something else. This is the pastseternity eternity by differentiation. To his beloved, the greatest thing alover can say is, Ive forgotten who you were , but yet I can feel you as astrange invasion of sensations! The lover no longer holds out for the repriseof past times. He no longer wishes for the same caresses and gestures, or micro twitches of his beloved. As Deleuze elaborating on the notion of the lovers search for time regained writes, the lover becomes like anartist who seek only the revelation of an original time that is capableof expressing simultaneously all its series and dimensions without

speci cations. Time regained becomes the production of new times. Timeregained is the potentiality of many new times but new timesthat cannot be seen by the lovers acculturated mundane eyes.The lover speaks not for this or that temporality, but an extratemporality

beyond historical measures. 20 The lovers search for time regained is anact of creation.

Place #7

15



16/20

To remember is to create to reach that point where the associative chain breaks, leaps over the constituted individual [and] is transferred to the birthof an individuating world. 21 This is a star that is still in its infancy andready to become anything. This is a territory ready to be caught up in thesolar winds and dissipate, only to be gathered sometime and somewhereelse. Stars cannot be completely destroyed; they will become dust to be

gathered again. In many ways, stars are always already another star if wetake into consideration their absolute eternitythat is sustained by the forceof time. Star-intoxicated lovers attained their eternal love by living thelives of stars.

When we say love is eternal, we must not confuse such a saying withthe common imagery of a lover and his beloved coiled together in acocoon that de es change and time. Love is eternal by virtue of its eternalchanging-ness, its difference from itself. To love is an act of poiesis. Thisis loves de ance of the historicists perspective that lays out progressive

development and eventual annulment. Love de es history by withholdingitself from being anything de nitional. Love disrespects memories bytreating them not as gems of the past but as the mere bricks for the birth of a star yet to come that follows no blueprint, and cosmic bodies that followno given moral codes.

Forgetting memories of ones beloved is not a mechanism to protect or shelter oneself from despair. To the contrary, he [the lover] must exposehimself to the test of that difference that he loves as much as he distrusts. 22 The lover exposes himself to the strange place memories can sweep himto. He must embrace the pure difference that constitute the event wherein

bodies and subjects, minds and places, become something else. As Irigarywrites, forget her so as to be welcoming her in her upsurge in the

present. 23 This is his only way out of despair to make memories of his beloved into works of art. Art directs love toward its own futurity.

16



17/20

No lover can truly say it is his beloveds heart he is after. Every lover knows his beloveds heart is never where he thinks it is but scattered acrossthe form of time. Besides, how can one grasp something that is already

part of oneself? Time is in one and vice versa. Ones beloved is already

part of him, but this is not to say one party has captured her heart. Rather,it speaks of a coextension in which both parties are not just coextensivewith each other but with the world at large and all those other stars yetto come. Lyotard elaborates on this coextension and explains why alover cannot grasp his beloved: It is because she is inside his eye likesome speck suspended in the aqueous humour one that moves with themovements of his gaze, on which he can never focus. 24 The lovers organsand his beloveds body and heart are caught up in the expanding universe.His eyes are already with her, yet not seeing her. Caught up with her, thelovers memories are more than unique fragments from the past, but real

mnemonic, conceptual, and intellectual forces that act immediately.

Place #8She is a woman without purpose, 25 writes Keith Ansell Pearsonin his contemplations on a lovers relationship to women in LawrencesStudy of Thomas Hardy . The woman without purpose is, however, not auseless object. She expresses great potentialities that are yet actualized

potentialities greater than what her name can promise. Her purpose

is yet to be de ned. Without de ned purposes the beloved expresses alife, which is shared by her lover that is always brimming over. Sheis a yet-woman in the lovers texts. As Ansell Pearson continues, shebecomes a rhizome, forging connections with other populations aroundher, becoming indistinct from a Dionysian Nature. 26

The woman without purpose becomes like a summer that is yet here,constituted by great potentialities beyond quali cation or quanti cation.The joy for a coming summer is always greater than the sum of wordsdescribing it, indeed, sometimes greater than that summer itself. Words

that are written not extraneous to this coming summer, these words do notdescribe what is suppose to come. These words attribute to the comingsummers intensifying wonderfulness. The coming-ness of this comingsummer subsists in these words. A coming summer expresses innumerableother coming summers; a coming summer speaks of other stars we haveyet mapped in the loving act of writing love.

A lovers beloved as a bloc of surging forces cuts through and combineswith the lovers body, sweeps him up in a cloud of change a momentof poiesis or else the emergence of life as artwork. Words and textsemerge from this moment only to be swept back to further and sustainthis moments perpetual intensity. Words and texts add to this continuous

production; they do not merely reproduce or reiterate the event. At thismoment the lover, his beloved and these words and texts are indistinct.Together they produce what Pearson calls new lines of lives. 27 We do notmake love the subject of art, but in art-making love becomes capable of occasioning the emergence of new modes of thinking, new subjectivities,and new spatio-temporalities. Ultimately love as art bears new modes of living. As Deleuze writes, Art produces resonances that are not those of memory. 28 Art sets up relations where there had not been; it is essentiallyconcerned with invention and newness, not unlike the act of loving itself.

Loving becomes art-making. Art becomes place-making.

17



18/20

Love passed through the work of art becomes productive; lover-artistsforge new memories instead of merely discovering old ones. 29 That isloves truthfulness; that is a lovers truthfulness to his beloved as well asthe truth a beloved can offer back. Lover and beloved offer each other their otherness what they are becoming .

Make no mistake, the lover still loves his beloved, but, only on the conditionhis beloved is from another star. He waits. In this waiting he disregardshis rei ed memories of his beloved, for how can he, who has already beentransformed in an unaccountable fashion still speak truthfully of his own memories? Conversely how can his beloved herself speak of her memories,for she too, insofar as she is one and the same as Nature is already engulfedin the event of change and chance? Both lover and beloved speak only of voices that are not their own. From mouths, bodies and stars they have yetto know they mumble words they have never heard.

Love is dismantled so that we may become capable of greater loving.30

Places and situations are deterritorialized so that they can become capableof forging paths.

(Endnotes)

Deleuze, Gilles (2000)1. Proust and Signs (Trans. R. Howard), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp.7-9

Kiekegaard, Sren (2001) Philosophical Fragments in2. The Kierkegaard Reader (Trans. & eds. J.Chamberlain & J. Re), Oxford, UK & Massachusetts: Blackwell. p.168

Ibid, p.1633.Ibid, p.1614.Ibid, p.1695.Deleuze (2000), p.97. As Deleuze wrote, Creation is the genesis of the act of thinking within thought6.

itself. This genesis implicates something that does violence to thought, which wrests it from its natural stupor and its merely abstract possibilities. The lover does not lament, or to say he is able to take sad passions and turnthem into actions that makes (his) life dynamic. Laments and lost love, memories of a beloved are all the rawmaterials from which he forge new beginnings like an artist: The truth seeker is the jealous man who catches alying sign on the beloveds face. He is the sensitive man, in that he encounters the violence of an impression. Heis the reader, the auditor, in that t he work of art emits signs that will perhaps force him to create.

Eco, Umberto (1995)7. Six Walks in the Fictional Woods , Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard UniversityPress. p.117

Lyotard, Jean-Franois (1998) Womanstruck (Trans. R. Harvey) in8. October (No. 86, Fall 1998) . pp.24-46, p.41

Ibid, p.429. bid, p.4310.Sol-Morales, Ignasi (1997)11. Differences: Topographies of Contemporary Architecture (Trans. G.

Thompson), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p.103

Deleuze, Gilles (1994)12. Difference and Repetition (Trans. P. Patton), London & New York: ContinuumBooks. p.239

Irigaray, Luce (1999)13. The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger (Trans. M.B. Mader), London: AthlonePress. p.56

Ibid, p.10914.Ibid, p.4715.Deleuze (2000), p.1416.Ibid, p.45. Deleuze noted that spatio-temporalities that do not yet exist but which bear on those who think 17.

them are de ned by the term complication, which certain Neoplatonists used to designate the original statethat precedes any development, any deployment, any explication. Complication envelops the many in theOne and af rms the unity of the multiple.

Lawrence, D.H. (1960) The Man who loved Islands in18. Love among the Haystacks and Other Stories ,London: Penguin Books. p.99

bid, p.10019.Deleuze (2000), p.4620.

Ibid, p.11121. Lyotard (1998), p.3122.Irigaray (1999), p.12823.Lyotard (1998), p.3124.Ansell Pearson, Keith (1999)25. Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze , London & New

York: Routledge. p.193Ibid.26.Ibid, p.19527.Deleuze (2000), p.15128.Ibid, pp.146-4729.Ansell Pearson, p.19530.

18



19/20

the stories, sites and

people the eight places

convey in the preceding

sections are to be found

in curious situations.graphical elements areneither gure nor ground, they are not there to supportor strengthen the text and the texts espoused meaning.these elements work togetherwith those phonetic marks toproduce subjectivities and spa-tialities that are yet to come,or at least, yet to be named.

the places from which we may view

our beloved whilst engaging with

this present text cut through architectural,

material, graphical, textual and conceptual

forces. These are places which truly obey

the order of time and the form of the world -

otherwise the form and order of change itself.on the p r in ted pagewe may indeed haveencountered the expansiveside of representation.

on the printed page we encounter a worldwhich colours, hue and tones remain yetto be mixed... there are pigments but yet

boundaries to put them within

19

but what now? after the act of writing an theorizing?



20/20

a book for the future memories of

your becoming-Mr. Marcel Proust

20

a book for the future memories of

me becoming-Patrick F. Chan


places to search for lost time

Documents