︎



collage of thoughts*

of my own** and from the texts I read


I.

Being is, non-being is not. (Parmenides)
What if, being is, non-being is, too? They co-exist. 
The existing thing and the being of the existing thing (Heidegger): Being is as abstract as non-being. The being does not exist. Things that exist exist. Then, being is not, non-being is not, too? They co-non-exist. 
The first question is:
Why is there something, rather than nothing? (Leibniz)
Or, we can put it like, 
Why is there being, rather than non-being?
It becomes invalid, if being and non-being co-exist / co-non-exist. They are and are not. 
The second question is:
Why is this rather than something else? (Leibniz)
Here we find the riddles of concepts. Identity of the condition and the conditioned. Choice. Subjectivity. Psychology. The ground. Plane of appearances. All of which have become more and more ambiguous and interrelated. 
The ground is slippery. Whoever appeals to a ground, receives a question about the ground. (Deleuze)
A question to silence the answers. The ground is silent. 

II. 

What becomes obvious is the vanity of the concept of being (or non-being) because of its dualistic imperative.
The problem of being and non-being is a wrong problem. (Bergson) Not because it can not be solved, because it is wrongly asked. 
Everything is becoming. (Nietzsche)
Becoming can not be reduced to anything that has become. Becoming is not what it becomes. It has neither a starting point, nor a conclusion. 
Becoming is not to be realized. It is to be undergone. It is the ultimate hyperobject (Morton).
One must go all the way to the end, a non-existent end, almost asceticly. There are things one could only do by mystifying oneself. (Deleuze)
The nature of becoming is to return, it is what returns. Not in a cyclical movement, cycles are things become. Rather a simultaneity in which one can not realize if it is moving or fixed. Dismantled dualism. This is not abstract thinking.
The only way to think about becoming is to be coalesced with it, to become the becoming. To transform repetition into something inward so that while everything changes, spirit can actually realize repetition. (Kierkegaard)
Being is not the substance anymore, is becoming. Repetition is the ground. Theory is practice.

III.

What makes a thing an art object?
Where is the distinction between the object and the art object?
Do I make a thing an art object, or does it do it all by itself?
What do I experience when an object becomes an art object?
Is my experience art or is art an object?
Can the object convey my experience to other people?
Are the things conveyed by the object my experiences, or are my experiences already conveyed to me by the object?
In this case, wouldn't the object tell its own story to everyone? Doesn't that make the object the subject and the subject the object?

IV.

Back to the question 
Why is this rather than something else? (Leibniz)
Where we find ourselves settling on
The ground. The slippery, the illusionary zone. The trickster.
The renowned dualist chant that puts minds at ease against the trickster for centuries: A is not not-A. (Hegel)
What is positive and real is produced as the negation of negation. (Deleuze)
It’s like
The desk is ‘not the chair’. OK, good to know what the desk is not, but still, what IS the desk?
Am I supposed to know some kind of a defined manual beforehand to make any kind of assumptions about reality?
White is ‘not black’. Night is ‘not day’. Coffee is ‘not tea’. Love is ‘not hate’.
First, I must know what black, day, tea and hate ‘is’, in order to understand what white, night, coffee and love ‘is’. Absurd.
Second, isn’t it too painfully reducing to define an object and/or a concept with the negation of one forcibly selected opposite while there is a whole eternity of what it is ‘not’? 
As well as what it is. 
Let’s speculate better, shall we?
A is A and A is not-A. A can be anything if I let it be. 
Objects are non-objects. (Morton)
The desk is the desk and not the desk. When I sit on it, becomes a chair. Simple. Otherwise, nothing would ever happen in the world.
This is a disturbingly simple idea but the thought needs disturbances. The world is a playground.

V.

So, art is ‘not not-art’?
What is not-art?
Not-art is not art.
I must be knowing what art is first, then. Do I know what it is?
Or would it be just enough if I contain it, if I separate it from ‘not art’ so that I can recognize it safely and surely as art?
Separated in a frame, on a pedestal, on a screen, in a room or by an institution.
Was it worthless before being recognized as art? Recognized by whom? 
The ground is silent.


VI.

An alienating silence.
Self-estranging. (Marx)
No one or nothing seems to be answering your call, not even yourself.
Here you are, sad, all alone, confused and isolated. Cut from own creative force. Paralysed. Dumb.
Ready to be enslaved and exploited.
Sadness makes no one intelligent. (Deleuze)

VII.

Intelligence is the capacity to receive. It is the power of being affected.
It has nothing to do with self-interest, cunningness or cynicism.
Intelligence can be self-destroying too.
To stay open is ingenious.
Open to the encounters that may or may not be good for you. What is good anyways? Let’s think beyond it.
Some will fill you with joy, enhance your vitality, give you the power to act, makes you feel connected to your body and to your environment.
Some will diminish them, make you sad, take your power away, make you feel disconnected or even destroy you. (Spinoza)
This is what it means to exist: oscillating between these two poles.
To live is to gain knowledge through this exhausting and uncanny game of encounters.   
To stay open is ingenious. Talent dissects for knowledge.
Closure is death.

VIII.

Knowledge of what?
Of life.

IX.

Art is a meditation on life.
Joy is productive, it is an instrument of life.
Productive but not in a capitalist manner, capitalism enslaves life.
Institutions enslave art.
What does enslavement mean here?
It means closure.
Closed to life’s productive and chaotic forces. Only some designated encounters are allowed. Over and over. Safely and securely.
Habit appears whenever eternity withdraws from repetition. (Kierkegaard) A blunting scheme of repeated scenes. 
However,
Something in me never ceases to vary. (Deleuze)
I can not be contained.
Because,
Life occupies all the available space. (Bataille)
So does art.






-to be continued-





*for lunatics
**please do not use without permisson and/or citing, thnx