Contemporary critiques of provincialism rarely stray from the observation that even those representationally disadvantaged with respect to post-humanist, post-capitalist values and norms tacitly and in an uncomplicated way share in those very assumptions. Such discourse is unsatisfying insofar as it means to diagnose as at bottom an excess of passivity on my part, and in a roundabout way repeats the language of repression which leaves me with nothing more to say, which I’ve grown to suspect is a matter of preference.

This idea of a situated collective marked by a lack of distinction in its own right, having acquired forgetting or presently stuck in an intuitive mode of relating to the material world, disabled from effecting the most basic kind of change necessary to maintain even integrity of being, all of this is implicit in globalization’s call for mobility and movement from the place which makes explicit the worthlessness of a state of consciousness that anticipates me.

It’s in this sense that lived displacements on the ground, while constitutive of open field discourse if ever there was such a thing, continue to be subjected to ideological thinking which borrows its authority from a residual metaphysical axiomatic of salvation as necessitating movement from the place, and the conflicting consolatory conceit it engenders that those who are already saved can stay put which, incidentally and from another view is only a polite way of concluding your irrelevance in advance. In either case, what does it matter what you say when the a priori lines you inherit are uninhabitable and airtight, if they can only ‘speak’ what was spoken from the prevailing side, if this conservatism is held as not true understanding which would be evidenced by departure in thought? Either way the best advised route seems to be one recognizing that lines forged by use of force are limited greatly and to be passed through. Where many lines, you pass through quickly.

An example of well-intended writing that is ready to receive me in its aim for a specialized general reader is one in which ‘sparkling instants’ are put to explicit use in order to represent each individual soul, while the argument itself as conceptual construct is only later implied. There average speed is evenly distributed to each of these instants while confessing that the ‘intuitive definition of speed’ must be thrown out in favor of the concept of the derivative, which corresponds to nothing in real life. Within this context (yet no less sudden for that) is entertained the notion of the even distribution of value in money form. In this way does it also happen to coincide with the more familiar radical assertion of change in real property relations as the only change that matters, all other aesthetic expressions of resistance being merely ‘fascistic’. The difference is the principled gesture in the former case towards what appears to be market liberalization implies also and necessarily a scaled-up demand for the same narrowly delimited objects of desire, one that is clearly incompatible with the other thing the aestheticized intellect seems to not want to relinquish, which is the championing of quite another kind of sharing activity as a way to arrive at truly distinctive being.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Shumi Ferguson