The Visibility of Relationality

Congrats are in order; the bachelor has become the Master, and I have emerged from my journey through administered education. More importantly, I have written draft one of the essay that may become my first book. I recreate snippets for your consideration.

Regarding life, I am attempting to capitalize on the depressed situation in the economy by venturing out and risking failure if need be. I am attempting to start a company with which I can perform some of the services that I have talent enough to capitalize on at a high quality. Be on the lookout for BrownStar Bound Inc.

The VISIBILITY of RELATIONALITY:
PERSPECTIVES, AESTHETICS, & KINOPSIS

PART ONE:
RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

I. New Perceptions, New Worldviews

River of Relationality, the soil, the there is becoming
Swimming with Fools, Quacks, and Brain-thinks abound
yet missed by these drowning fish even in a shrinking world
Missed in favor of images, of things framed in this River

Indeed, these fish have not eyes for seeing flowing-matter
Worse, they are imprisoned in perspectives that deny the River
New Perspectives, new styles, new worldviews, new cinemas,
these shall open new perceptions, and bring these sea basses oxygen

And what of new perceptions? Perceptions new of what? Of the River of Relationality, no doubt. And? What of new perceptions of such? Have we not them now? The philosopher, Fool, ever more rapidly proclaims the ineptitude of the scientist, Quack, in witnessing this river. For Quack has no conception of the role of memory, the imagination, or meaning in humen’s perception of the River. Quack just manipulates limited models of meaningless objects as objective things. What of all the Cartesianism of the Fool, shouts Quack. No less than we does the Fool engage in acts of judgment in placing perceived objects into transcendental concepts and object = x-forms, alienating, categorizing, philosophizing!

Enough! Both Fool and Quack have only just returned to the River of Relationality with force and conviction. Do they well to content themselves with fluid perceptions of the river, than solid perceptions of mirage-things. And what of the speculating masses, Brain-Think? Does it perceive this River, this shimmering sea, this flowing existence? Nay, nay, nay! What’s this? A new character, the social critic, Madman, makes his presence visible. Nay! he shouts. Brainthink sees nothing but clichés, cinematic clichés, televisual clichés, musical clichés, political clichés, historical clichés and projections, and has not the slightest intuition of the connections between these clichés to themselves in time and to other clichés in the same space of the public sphere. Nay, blind has become the Brainthink to Relationality!

From the sky to the earth, Brain-think, Fool, Madman, and Quack must return to the ‘there is becoming’ which underlies the object-in-general or thing, to the site and soil of the sensible and opened River, such as it becomes lived in our bodies. To hell with all objects, things, and categories, let us move towards a perception based in rhythm and modulation, a sea of transforming forms.

Breathtaking evolutions in technology have become evermore frequent; as the technology so the humen, for breathtaking evolutions are similarly becoming more frequent in biological, sociological, and psychological manners along at least generational lines. Throughout the 20th Century, the quality of humen has progressed towards the neo-human end on the scale of the realization of human potential (one the range proto-human-neo), as a new culture of global intersubjective communication has Easter risen from the ashes of war and fear-mongering. With airplanes, the globalizing culture and media industries, the Internet, global commerce and cultural exchange, we have become to recognize a global relational sociology.

Local and global Relational images are becoming necessary for ourselves evolution; myself, and the fool Merleau-Ponty for one, want to reach beyond the visual givens, to open upon a texture of the river which the discrete sensorial messages, the images, become only caesura, pauses, and intervals of. To step deeper still into the river of relations which bathes the things and worlds ourselves perceive; not for fame or glory, but to provide a breaking point in the evolutionary velocity of humen. With our technology, with our global economy, with our globalizing one-dimensional culture of the Spectacle, with our appreciation of relational sociology and global ecology, ourselves need new perspectives, new psycho-ideological perspectives, onto the river of Relationality and the function of our milieu in the duration of this our evolving species and world.

The global socio-economic unity of humen must be a step towards neo-humans, like the continental unity of South America must become a step towards new independent states. This increasing relational sociology can become shown, given perceptive actualization, in such an acentered film as Rod Frinckes’ 1992 film Baraka, a non-narrative film, similar to Koyanniqatsi, which expresses the relations of cultural and religious customs across the globe, silently whispering ourselves interrelatedness (even to primates).


New perspectives mean new styles and worldviews, means new manners of unifying our perceptive experience, means new depth, new dimensions, new spaces of relation between art-image, spectator, and its World. For us to arrive into a future in which our relatedness to each other, of America to Iraq, of American workers to Chinese Workers, of American markets to imported foreign goods, of lower-class homeless veterans to upper-class defense industry military executives, in which these have become as obvious as the materiality of the medium from which you currently read, ourselves will need new perspectives, new Worldviews, new foundational principles for our intersubjective reality.

Alas, ‘tis a wall that has stood so long because it has been fortified; our entire language has the anti-relational perspective of ancient fools and quacks. Ourselves mind-eye has become trained in this objectifying perspective. How can we adjust this perspective? The image-perspective, of course; the relational perspective and aesthetics of kinopsis. Well, first off, of what is becoming this relational perspective?

II. Cinematic Universe of Becoming Relations and Images

Imagistic Universe, images of machinic movement, of becoming Seas
No God or Man directing this assemblage, this universal cinema
Indeed, God, Man, and Things rendered but insignificants
All flow, all history, movement relating parts in spacetime
Reflections of light on this steel water of flowing-matter
Blocs, nay pebbles, appearing though erased just as soon,
shredded for the sea floor, becoming that from which it arose.
Even the soil of the sea becomes the minerals of the as-if-is pebbles

Nay, lies are these things, these pebbles, these forms,
For transformation be elixir elemental of this mobile perspective of the Whole
Force, rhythm, intensities, densities; these are what swim this sea we unsee.

Yea, these and the seas of Spectators in the Machine Brain
Becoming spectator holding a shifting blurring bubble of images
A frame by elimination and categorization for its pleasure and ends
Needy these Image-centers, crafting surreal realities with and against others
Dividing the divisible, making rigid the changing, centering the acentered
Coming towards and leaving in attention thus crafting relations of space
Nearing and faring in interest thus shaping the duration of time

Embodied web of sense-act, sensing and perceiving as its materiality allows
Becoming in this sea, thus related to I, You and We in history
Images, all, all movement, evolution, relations, spacetime, and spectators.




III. Perspective Images of Intervals, Movement, and Force

Horizons of mvmt-images appearing at the edges of frames
Eliminations take spacetime, takes intervals like flames

With and through these el(um)inations images dance
Whether the dance is for rain, the force, or things; pure chance

Mvmt-images dance with image-centers along vibrating paths
Uncanny, cliché, and mystical these fluid-waves they crash

Event-full becomes the perception of the spectator
A montage of pcpt., affect, action-images; interests play regulator

The fools Relationalists must take the intervals back from cliché sight
Fill in the darkness between, like the moon filling night

Must reveal the space of connection btw spectator-images-Seas
where manifold vibrations tickle vibrations memorial’s fancies




IV. Rhythmic-Chaos Beneath Sensation and Perception

The bodily sensing, the rhythmic sensing before the perceived
The wave-force swaying this body in the River like reeds
Un, not, or pleasant becomes the waves against this body
varying measurements and measureds in this sea of mvmt, this folly
Vibrations passing over and under orders and levels

Spectators perceiving only after aesthetic comprehension
Perceiving in conflict, in need, in and through dimensions
Perceiving in repetition, in contraction, in relation
Tension in these translations, in these intervals and vibration
The mind’s eye meets the eye’s mind when are unsettled

This tension the Relationalists must reveal
This tension btw the objective, the surreal, and the ideal
This unseen tense relation btw Spectator and Sea
Btw the seen, the out-of-frame, the imagination, and we

This open rhythmic chaos, this sea of wave-force btw
Here becomes the aesthetics of the Relationalists and King



V. The Spectacle and the Cliché Perspective

Dancing clichés meet dancing pen and men
in the Spectacle’s tentacles of after-image land

Fetishized owned things dance screaming
Screaming perform! Consume and keep Dreaming!

Structured are these after-images, structuring
all around dogmatic cliché structures rupturing

Betwixt image-objects, subjects, and imagos
Between mvmt, pcpt, affection, and action images

Worldviews of crystals, of closed unclosed things
Worldviews with a history fabricated like divine kings

Madmen shout in unison, voices that could murder
Seems they can stand this reactionary world no further

Culture industries, apparatuses, and spheres
all saturated with after-images that refuse their years

Saturating squarely into psyches and sights
But relational perspectives come prepared for the fight

The Relationalists banishes the dynamic closed set
with open figural frameworks of vibration instead

Banishes the past with progressive images and cultures
Battles with moving sensations against frozen cliché vultures

Movement shall thaw these clichés, these solid stones
Into water then! With the flow these shall atone

Nay, the river washes over pebbles, and this will not do
Nay, in the vapor will these clichés ooze,
where crystals are revealed to be moving molecules



VI. Perspectives Cliché and Relational

To where look we for perspective?
At not the of but the in, at not what but how
The how of the Fool becomes Inquisition
The in of the Deviant becomes Alternation.

Perspective and Cs. like spotted spectacles
Absent presences which tap into visibility
which tap visibility into present absences
Idols for me, icons for he, and living images for we

Here becomes the Relationalists chant.
Relational perspective, that view onto process,
that play of perception, that dynamism of living images
We must sublim(at)e the Brain’s cliché perspective!

Not the car but the drive interests us
Not the cliché but the mystical arose us
Not the things, things swimming in fluid
but forms transmutating in the vapor of sensation

We Relationalists must reveal force, conflict, chaos
the sublime out-there towards images of gaseous sight
The movement that becomes all in relations
The movement that border-crosses for better inter-tens-ation


PART TWO:
Relational Aesthetics



I. Art, the Event of De-automatizing Cliché-vision

Art, that banana peel which slips the cliché perspective
That injection of vital tension in the arm of the eye's mind
Transforming the given before the spectating eyes

Art, peel back wool and show the potential for change
Inject alternative perspectives into the mind's eye
Whisper Becoming and Relationality to formed spectators

Art, subway of spectator-sensing-art-image machine-relation
Arming spectators with sensations for interpretation
Be for translation and mvmt., Relational Deviants

Art thou the subway ride event in its entirety
and not merely the passing lights and pillars in their particularity



II. Tension, Attention, Attendance, and Stretching Clichés

Tension, you force of the Vapor
voice of movement and relations in this Universe

Unpleasant thus eliminated
you provoke the action of attention

Stretching clichés and sight
tension you bring the spectator on the scene

Attendance, animation, and association
all these do you use to speak Relations to we,
to we the Relationalists, the stretchers of clichés.



III. Relations made evident by Tension in the Art-event

Relations do these tensions communicate
Btw the seen and the unseen, the act and the work
These tensions in the image-perspective

Relations do they speak, these unpleasants
Between seer and shower, spectator and Deviant
Relations of space and time in the open duration

Relations, those progressive and mystical events
These do the tension in and between the openings
into and through-which the image-perspective make seen
These deviant, Relationalists, show to seers that would see the unseen.



IV. The Spectator-sensing-Art-image Machine Relation

Clouds, parts within the vapor of the art-event
Parts of revelation, parts of opening, vignettes of motion
Vignettes relating spectators to Earths and Worlds
Complex image-figurals reflecting light onto the dark flow
the Becoming-Relationality, that sea, that river, the train, that gas

Crystal worldviews must be constructions then,
Unhappy must be the spectator with blurred vision of the vapor
For harmony tis all this vapor doth know, a tense harmony
Refuse those cliché spectacles, refuse that limitation
Look upon the depth beneath, those Relations of Becoming

Lightening, hear me, lightening! To rip open textures,
reveal filled molecules in the dark space of the night sky.
Lightening, electricity of Becoming-Relationality
Thus becomes the art-event for the spectator
Thus becomes the Relationalists’ aim

Art-image, bring chaos to the cliché perspective
Be that Cezanne, that modulator and relativator
Be those new eyes, that tension, that vibration, that rhythm,
Awaken, forces! Vibrate, color! Escape those solid forms!

Vivid becomes this frame, this image-prspctv
Your rhythm shifts time, your rhythm shifts space
Your vibration doth sway with negative, neutrals, and positives
Vivid by way of your variations of perspective

Kinesthetic, these become art-images relational
These become the source of rhythm and vivacity
These your tool! Relationalist Deviant and Fool
Kinoptical Aesthetics. Go now, speak of the shift with sheer audacity!



V. Flux kinoptical Art-images, Flux-images


Flux-images, gas of perspectives
Vibration waves of montage, of sensations
more than fixed and flow, you pulsate flux-image
This pulsation, drops in the web of memory-traces
Gate to the palace of the dancing imagos of the Id
In-flux with the Cliché perspective, dust in the wind
stretch those forms, mutate and montage those after-images.
Btw images, btw mediums, btw spectator and performance
These Relationalists are your techniques, these flux-images

Flux forms formed flurries that fixed flows into fish from Finland fed
tension till torpedoes of thought teared tires to treed translation for transformational art-images, imagined artfully to fly
like Finland’s fish into the in-flux flurry of this vapor.
Vapor, said the flux, vapor…and fish.
To fry, asked I? No, to fill.



VI. Kinoptical Art-events as Situations

Situations, these become the symbol of Relationality
Reveal that relation which becomes the spectator
which is becoming the spectator-sensing-art-image
More than mere facts and events, open up built-space
Transform locales so that action happens within and without
Relational Aesthetics, that the situation becomes
Intermedia, that the situation becomes
Invisible theatre, that the situation becomes
Be that door to the game of resistance
Be that, Relational Deviant, and become no more




PART THREE:
SITUAKINOPSIS EVENTS

Opsis, the Greek word for spectacle, appearance, sight, and view, was characterized as the least important aspect of tragedy for Aristotle in his Poetics. The fool claimed that tragedy becomes felt even without representation and actors. How far from the out-there of this milieu do the words of the fool ring to our ears; yet in his own time, a time that praised the written word as it praised the writing of words, the poet’s role indeed became more important than the putter on stage, the metteur en scene, the director. In this milieu, opsis, what has become referred to as the mise-en-scene of performing arts, is becoming the elemental elixir for Situakinoptical art-events.

Opsis becomes the means of the transmission of mvmt-images from and through the situakinoptical art-image in the art-event. Mise-en-scene in the cinema and in theatre can refer to everything that occurs before the camera and on stage and their arrangement; that means everything, every inch of the frame, every actor, every prop, every location. The mise-en-scene of cinema, opsis, becomes the Spectacle of cinema itself; the perspective on the whole which every image separately and cumulatively works to create.

With opsis, and uniquely it in comparison to other visual mediums, the World itself may become art-image, and not just the art-image becoming a world to express the World and Earth. Opsis becomes the correlative to the cinematic universe of mvmt-images; just as the vapor of the Becoming-Relations becomes a pure duration of mvmt-images, artificially closed sets of movement, action, and interaction of matter, which become relatively and absolutely related to larger sets from centered perspectives in spacetime, so does the cinema as alternative art-image become sets (frames, shots) of a set of mvmt-images in a definite duration. The mechanical reproduction of the shared World, with a machine eye more powerful and analytical than the human eye, grants opsis its emblematic Worldview (view onto world, opsis onto World) crafting potentiality, grants opsis what Deviant Maya Deren called its authority. Only such a power of Worldview access and alteration can battle the World of the Spectacle with any significant force in this milieu.

When opsis becomes situakinoptical, when it becomes an alternative art-image used in a situation, properly in-flux and kinesthetic, and addressed to the eye and visual sensation, it becomes a Situakinopsis Event; here opsis, the spectacle of cinema, becomes the reconstruction of the spectacle of the Spectacular World into the spectacle of the Progressive World (on the range Spectacular-Conventional-Progressive in regards to the quantity of clichés a Worlds uses or does not). How becomes cinema optical? Brain-think and Fool shout that cinema always becomes optical, for we watch it. Far too many foolish deviants, such as auteur Germaine Dulac (1882-1942), have other things to say.

Dulac, auteur one of the earliest dream Surrealist kinopsis pieces, The Seashell and the Clergyman (1926) ( Available to watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/dulac_coquille.html), was concerned that cinema, though a uniquely visual art, did not seek its emotion in the pure optic sense; cinema was, and still is, becoming far too literary. This becomes the affirmative and conventional (rather than progressive) cinematic art-image, the spectacle of the Spectacular world for the entertainment of Brain-think in Prspctv-prspctv. Here one finds facts and not events and situations, story instead of sensation and translation, solids instead of liquid and vapor; here becomes the difference between X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude.

In the latter film, the image-perspective addresses the feelings and intelligence, the perception and comprehension of the spectator, by harmonies, chords, shadow, light, rhythm, mvmt, force, and chaos. Whereas X-Men- as an Affirmative art-image of facts- attempts to tell plot driven narratives and stories of solid persons and easily recognizable things and easily understandable casual action, Intestinal Fortitude- as an art-event- becomes an optical event, that draws upon chaos, tension, and translation to create a set of vapor that becomes up to the mind’s eye and the eye’s mind (rather than the Ego) of the spectator to comprehend and perceive what meaning and out-there it shall. The visual image swims the psyche in depths which the words and language of the ego do not; images may suggest thousands of thoughts and words, and optical art-images prefer these any day to cliché dialogue in cliché narratives with affirmative and conventional aesthetic styles.

Dulac, in 1928, thought that cinema had become anti-visual, and that a great reform was needed. Speak Dulac! The future belongs to the film that cannot be told. The seventh art, that of the screen, becomes depth rendered perceptible, the depth that lies beneath the surface of stories; it becomes the musical ungraspable. The more we get rid of the plot to go in the direction of visual cinema, the more we will work for the seventh art. Indeed. More than any element, the literary stories and the plots of cliché cinematic art-images destroy the visuality of cinema; attention becomes more addressed to the what of linguistic solids (what’s happening in the narrative) than to the how of vapor (how does this affect one). The first delimitation of kinopsis art-images becomes that they address themselves not to a narrative but to a unified optical sensation and an image of various translations of the relative affection of the spectators.

What of the in-flux and kinesthesia, how may cinema participate in this luxury? Barton’s kinopsis seems the flux-image par excellence. Every image becomes what it is not, every image transforms, every image moves. Indeed, it seems difficult to even imagine a kinopsis art-image more gorgeously in-flux than Intestinal Fortitude, difficult to imagine an art-image in which forms become rendered more vaporously. The hundred second piece speaks of the flux more than prosaic words ever could. All motion, all juxtaposition of images, different layers by way of superimposition and manually manipulating the film, all rhythmic-chaos and optical poetry.

Contrast Intestinal Fortitude to X-Men, wherein which frames and shots become static, the motion in between images by way of transition is becoming guided and simple, and the rhythm of cutting only increases on action that becomes edited to appear as-if-is happening in the same time. Frames are fixed, rather than flowing, in-flux, living-images and figurals, as in Fortitude. In X-Men, things become solid, rather than vaporous, and express story rather than the translation and transformation of mvmt, pcpt, affection, and action-images in the intervals of framed spacetime.

This becomes motion, this becomes kinesthesia and the tension of translation expressed. A less extreme version of the cinematic flux-image has become Maurice Lemaitre’s L’Amour Reinvente (1979) (http://ubu.com/film/lemaitre_amour.html). Once again, every frame moves, every image vibrates with aesthetic transformation; there are no solid, cliché, after-image forms in the vapor of the flux-image, as every image pulsates with difference, change, transformation, and mvmt. Both Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente reveal all that has been said and needs to be said of Flux-images. These become contrasted to a fixed art-image which nevertheless becomes kinoptical, a fixed kinoptical art image; Chris Marker’s La Jetee (1962). Here still (freeze framed) cinematogrammes, only a few actually shot on still camera, become edited in such a manner that even these vibrate motion. Marker also subtly brings back in motion in some of the later shots, as when the love interest lies in bed. Editing can make even still and fixed opsis-images kinoptical.

Throughout fixed-flow-flux cinematic images, the through line of montagistic formation continues. Montage becomes pivotal to kinesthesia in kinopsis, to the image-perspective of kinopsis art-images; montage becomes the perspective of the kinopsis piece, the perspective the piece attempts to share in interpreting in the event, and attempts to open-into the space of the context in the situation. Deviant Dziga Vertov theorized on montage, on intervals and editing as the essence of cinema. Vertov tells us what one needs to know about the intervals, about vibration, about mvmt and the cinema and montage and the universe of cinematic mvmt. Indeed, Vertov’s concepts regarding montage, some of the earliest foolery of cinematic deviancy, becomes more related to our montage than divergent. Speak Vertov!

The School of Kino-Eye requires that the cine-thing become built by intervals, upon mvmt between the pieces of the frames; upon the proportions of these pieces between themselves, upon the transitions from one visual impulse to the next. The interval, the spectacular interval, this becomes the relations between pieces. The auteur must take into consideration, between two adjoining images, the spectacular value of each distinct image in relations to all others in the montage-battle that begins. To find the most convenient itinerary for the eyes of the spectator in the midst of all these mutual reactions, attractions, and repulsions of images among themselves, to reduce this whole multiplicity of intervals (of movements from one image to the other) to a simple spectacular equation which expresses a whole out-there: to a spectacular formula expressing in the best possible manner the essential theme of the cine-thing, such becomes the most difficult and important task of the author of montage.

Indeed. The spectacle of opsis, of relations amongst images, becomes again the anti-Spectacle. The variation and interaction of montage released from a plotted narrative, variation and interaction that juxtaposes and causes tension and expresses rhythm between shots as framed sets; this becomes the spectacular power of kinopsis. For one, the variation and interaction of images creates interior animism and motion, and as the psyche works to attach comprehension to the varying units of measurement (the shots and images). This action of spectator becomes relational, as the out-there express becomes more than anything the distance of associations spanned in between two images. Here montage slows the process of perception through leaving the viewer to confer the relation between images their meaning. John Baldessari’s Title (1971) ( http://www.ubu.com/film/baldessari_title.html) comes to mind.

In this fixed relational-prspctv kinopsis-image, a group of image filmed from a fixed camera angles rotates and slowly repeats, transitioning from beach views to lonely dogs sitting by stones in a bare studio. The kinopsis-image continues to introduce and repeat images and characters of a cliché film that might have become; it instead deconstructs cliché narratives with a variation of images that become up to the spectator to confer meaning and relevance to. This up-to spectator becomes the opening-into by which the art-image enters the sea of the psyche; here becomes the relation of kinopsis to spectator.

In montage, kinopsis speaks relations. It speaks the relations of planes (small and large; of a shot of a face in a room followed by that of a pyramid in Jarman’s Garden of Luxor), speaks relations of mvmts within shots, speaks relation of lights and shades. These become only a few relations amongst many that may become evident in montage between images; even these alone work powerfully enough to awaken kinopsis’ great power, the power to express an acentered plane of pure mvmt-images. Riding the webs of relations made visible by spectacular intervals between moving images (frames and shots), kinopsis works non-conceptually, beneath perception and words, beneath the Pcs.Ego of the spectator, to recreate the acentered (unembodied and unframed) plane of mvmt images which becomes this universe of vaporous Becoming-Relations.

Human sight becomes centered, relative, mostly immobile, with defined boundaries (horizons) and narrowly spanned distances. Upon dawning the cliché-prspctv the spectator’s sight becomes all the more particular, relative, for the Spectacle preaches separation, immediacy, and a complacency which calls mass herdishness individuality, and these all corrode sight of the vapor of Relationality. Kinopsis may refuse this centered sight, this defined and solid sight more definable by what it lacks than what it shows.

No correlation in the prspctv-prspctv, huh Brainthink? No mobility, no room for original and new motion and action. This must not become the universal sight. The montagistic perspective, which becomes the image-perspective of the kinopsis-image, may become categorized along the range of impersonal-personal-universal, where personal must become the emblem of natural human perception, impersonal the false objectivity of cliché cinematic art-images, and universal an appeal to the acentered universe of motion and Becoming-Relations.

To see X-Men, one sees the impersonal eye of the cliché cinematic art-image. Editing techniques, directing and acting techniques, screenwriting and cinematography techniques, all of old, all used in X-Men unabashedly; indeed, used sloppily and with no complexity of character. But it became a three-quel, says Brainthink. Nobody expects those to become executed well. Indeed.

What X-men says of the cliché image-perspective becomes the false objectivity of a camera which alternates perspectives between on the action as present ghost- the sutured passive spectator— and within the perspective of a looking or reflecting character- protagonist. The spectator becomes situated as a seated body that becomes presented slightly varying views onto simultaneous spacetime within simultaneous spacetime. Here becomes match cutting on action, parallel editing, 180-degree rules, presentation of continuous and non-problematic temporality and 24 frames per second. This becomes the style-less style of the cliché-perspective, able to remain open in shifts in techniques discovered by the avant-garde Deviants, yet maintain the core of century old social structures, and decade old cinematic formal structures. The impersonal montagistic-prspctv offers a comfortable, affirmative, and cliché (for the symbols it utilizes most have become old by the time these industries adopt said practice, after it has become less shocking and alternative) perspective onto the World; it becomes the logical form for the voice of the Spectacle.

The personal image-perspective rather becomes an embodied perspective. The embodied perspective may become the mediate sight of an on-screen character, that of a non-diegetic character/narrator, or that of the editor or auteur. In Frank Zwartsej’s Spectator (1970) ( Watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/zwartjes_spectator.html) the image-perspective escapes the impersonal-prspctv portrayal of POV by the quality and quantity of images seen through the eyes of the photographer. In the black and white short, a male photographer takes pictures of a slender female model in a tight and dimly light bare space. This becomes the cliché plot of rape with the camera-lens at this spacetime, but in 1970, this no doubt became avant-garde.

The camera-ego, the personal brain behind the visibility of the kinopsis, becomes that of the photographer, such that when the lens gazes on the model, we see not only through the lens of the camera filming, not only through the lens of the camera snapping, but also through the lens of the character himself. A POV shot of Wolverine in X-Men palls in comparison to the intimacy of the spectator with the character in whose eyes we see in Spectator. When the model looks at we the spectator, we see her through his eyes, his aggressive, longing eyes, and the shadows beneath her eyes play witness to the abuse.

The personal perspective may also become that of a character off-screen. In Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil (1983), footage shot by a fictional character, perhaps on 16mm film, becomes linked together by the voice of a narrator reading letters written by the filming character during his travels. The spectator begins to see this mix of images of locales throughout the world through the eyes of this poetic amateur auteur; one’s suspicion that this character becomes no other than the auteur himself must become warranted. The character’s name becomes the pseudonym Marker goes by.

In Sans Soleil, the non-diegetic personal image-perspective meets the auteur personal image-prspctv. Purely auteur personal image-prspctvs become the films of Stan Brakhage, such as Window, Water, Moving Baby (1958), the first birth scene shown in public. Brakhage documents his wife’s at home birth. She lays in the tub, light enters from an opened window, water drips done her belly, affection shots of her in joy, of her in pain, of her in labor; these images Brakhage swirls in flowing then fluxing rhythm, arriving at the end of the duration to his personal vision of the birth of his first child.

The relational montagistic-prspctv refuses to confine itself to false objectivities, or particular embodied perspectives; the relational kinopsis image-prspctv (relational-prspctv) becomes the through-which the sensations of the kinopsis open-into the psyche of the spectator, whereby the event of spectating becomes itself the image-prspctv of the duration. This becomes the perspective of in-flux images, the perspective without story and narration, the perspective without center and frames, the boundless prspctv that spans universal distances, and opens-into a World in which only the isolated and grouped spectator may confer sensations with perceived meanings.

Barton’s Fortitude becomes evidently applicable. There becomes no human or impersonal image-center, camera-ego, image-perspective; there becomes only mvmt, sensations open for association and interpretation, yet operating beneath words and perception. If an embodied perspective the relational perspective connotes, it becomes that of the kinopsis-image itself in its total duration. Intestinal Fortitude becomes its own Cs. Its own ego, its own system of composition and representation. This perspective becomes most unnatural for most relational, most artificial for most transformative of Brainthink’s default perspective and perception.

It becomes the mobility of this the relational-prspctvs centers and the variability of its framings which lead it to restore the intervals to matter. This moving, shifting perspective, in layers, in rhythm, in relation to the spectator, in relation to each frame and image, in relation to time, this relational-prspctv of kinopsis, evident in Fortitude, in Reinvente, in Fiction of Customs (watch at kjrucks.com), this becomes the revelation of Relationality in visibility, in kinopsis art-events.

And what of the situation? How might kinopsis become a situation? For one, as optical, kinesthetic, and relational-prspctv as Intestinal Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente become as kinopsis-images, they become only events, art-images which call out for the interpretation and participation of the spectator. The meaning or story of Fortitude becomes what the spectator decides it becomes, rather what the psyche decides it becomes. This must become contrasted to X-Men, where the meaning and story become dictated to a passive spectator. Further the event must become contrasted to the situation, which goes beyond speaking its relation to the spectator through the image-prspctv onto the World of the kinopsis, and invades the spectator’s psyche and milieu, such that the art-image attempts to transform the context of the art-event, the spectator-sensing-art-image, and the spectacle of the Spectacular World.

On February 17, 2009, I, King Rucks, performed the first Situakinopsis Event at the Jerry Labowitz Theatre on the NYU campus. My kinopsis piece Fiction of Customs played the part of the kinopsis, and my simultaneous performance, poetic and improvised spoken word, played the part of the situation. By introducing the piece and myself and asking the spectators to participate with their interpretation, I, King Rucks, created an event. Then, by improvising a performance directed by the sensations within the kinopsis, with words I imagined would express or satirize what Brainthink was becoming to imag-ine, I, King Rucks, created a situation, and the world of the Labowitz Theatre became the spectacle, the opsis, of The Fiction of Customs. When the world of the context, any set-locale within the larger set of the Spectacular World, becomes the world of the kinopsis art-image through situational performances, and invisible performances especially, then one encounters a Situakinopsis Event.

Yet this event did not go nearly far enough. For one, the spectators were only participates in isolation and alienation; laughs, chit-chatting, but this can not be becoming the transformation of the spectator into the spect-actor. Myself feels that this event did indeed become situational, yet more is becoming necessary to land it squarely into the pantheon of Situakinopsis. Next time, myself shall hand the microphone to others in the crowd, and let them improvise, let them express the concepts which come into and out of existence during the event of the situation of the kinopsis. From there they will give it to someone else, and so on; this would have become more situational.

And still, this event replicated the traditional interaction of the spectator and the art-image; the lights were dimmed, spectators hushed, the screen brightens and the show begins. In such a context, it becomes difficult for any event to become situational, even the events of the Relationalist Deviant. Next time, I will ask the lights be keep up, that spectators remain standing and even walk around, and I will run the isle so that the show escapes the fourth wall. Better, I, King Rucks, will have the film projected over the walls of the theater, so that the spectator has to look around, take action, to witness the event. Better still, avoiding theaters all together, and putting on Situakinopsis events where they should be, in the Spectacular World (unannounced in public spaces); this becomes the first and most preferred option of the Relationalist Deviant. At my last Situakinopsis Event using the Fiction of Customs, I gave the DVD and the script for performing to a teenager that appreciated the show; I can only hope that he performs better situations with the material, for I must move on to other situations, other Situakinopsis Events.

*********************************************************

And thus this tale ends. You, reader, must make the poetry of Situakinopsis Events; I, King Rucks, have become weary of the game of wordplay which is becoming art-philosophy. This journey was indeed fun, and not a few seemingly original concepts became evident. Those concepts you consider cliché, erase with a black marker; those that you find conventional, scratch through with a pen or pencil. Keep only those that have added value to your endeavors, Deviant, Fool, Madman, Quack, and Relationalist. I, King Rucks, have retired from the game of linguistic concepts and investigations for the moment, satisfied as only as Master can become. But this satisfaction smells of poverty!

To the streets, Relationalists! To the game of Situakinopsis Events! Wait no longer; become that lightening of mystical perspectives that progress this Spectacular world. Become those fools of Deviancy, those deviants of Foolery, those invisible actors, those auteur-prophets that bow to the perspective of motion, of becoming, of action, of relations, of rhythmic-chaos, of Becoming, and Relationality. Become that crack of light which fills the empty night sky of this Globalized Spectacular world. Become that, and become no more Relationalists; for that is becoming more than enough to fill Brainthink with the possibilities for creating and building alternative worlds, alternative built spaces of shared out-there Truth. Become that, for that World of the Kinopsis becomes that world in which our relatedness to each other, to our ids and sensations, to our ideals and our lived experience, to our history and our future, to our labor and action whether alienated or relational, to our perspectives whether cliché or relational, in which these become as obvious as Job, the outlined man in Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude; but just as Job, even these outlines of relations become in attendance for only an interval in the wave of this universe of Becoming-Relations. So become visible Relationalists and Relationality, become visible in the public spaces and theaters of this Spectacular World, yet weep not to full back into obscurity when the wave moves on.

Surrelational Cinemart

King Rucks is on the march towards his first book. It shall encompass you, your mother, and everybody you know... so you might want to stay tuned! The last leg of this march was the creation of a theory of Surrealist Relational Cinematic Art, or Surrelational Cinemart. I reproduce a free association poem and the intro and a short conclusion of the aforementioned essay.

... The Pepsi adminstration is doing as expected; mending erroneous errors made by the last regime, yet moving fullspeed ahead with other [yet to be revealed in the public conscious as erroneous] errors. The change is coming from the top (and its depressing), and the bottom had better respond if it wants its own type of change.

Poetry Preface

I began to write
Right before I left
to begin to write
About right beginning's
left to write about.
Postulating the correct preface
for my poetry pamphlet.
Rather, prefacing my poetry
to prepare paradoxes
TO leave a residue of surrealistic symbolism
Symbolizing ‘isms’ so real
of dew resting on a leaf, TOO.

When I write, I wrote
I will write whimsically of white spaces
colored by lead based lines relating together
to create associations of thoughts swirled around
constellations of words whimsically wrought.
Perhaps happenings per beginning will inspire me
to begin beginnings of ethereal excellence,
excreting the lead based lines aforementioned.
Indeed indigenous thoughts roam through my pencil
and release themselves above the signature below.

Jody Rucks – Sept. 29.05

Freud and the Cinema:
Towards a theory of Surreal Relational Cinemart

Introduction:
Let’s make a movie!


A bipolar and delusional screenwriter, who speaks his own language, sells a screenplay. The producer thinks him brilliant but mad, and orders a number of revisions. This is your typical hard-nosed producer; he’s seen traumatic times, had success and failure at intense levels, and works to make a profitable film that can make the screenwriter satisfied (or at least not upset the screenwriter). Thus, the producer submits himself to what he thinks are pre-crafted rules of the game. The screenwriter, who has no capital and thus no ability to create the film on his own, submits to the revisions, but he alters the final screenplay so that the symbols in the film will still communicate his original ideas. The producer finds a director he thinks competent enough to bring this screenplay to life, a man not unlike himself (or who he wanted to be before he realized he had no talent). The director is a man schooled in the finest techniques of filmmaking, particularly in attaching words to the visual pictures he creates in his head so that he may communicate and execute his vision more clearly. The director must be our protagonist; his passion and perspective will drive the life of this film. The producer pitches an elaborate pitch; he himself is in love with this screenplay. Enthralled with the ideas of the screenwriter, convinced of the brilliant film to come by a successful producer, the director gleefully agrees. Oh what joy, we’re making a movie!

After rehearsal and pre-production have had their stint, production starts. The director works with the cinematographer to make this vision come to life. The cinematographer is skilled in two areas; in translating the director’s words into particular visual images, and in using the camera to create and record these images. The camera is a pristine one, a product of the 21st century. With its lenses and with the recording material it uses, it records light from the World from a particular perspective. On our film, the director edits in camera based on his transformation of the ideas of the screenwriter, and the producer edits still more after production. After he’s finished, the producer screens the film for the director; the camera acts as the projector, and the cinematographer the projectionist. The screenwriter has been allowed to come to the screening, but must sit in the back and watch silently; the producer doesn’t want him befuddling the director’s head.

The director believes the film more or less representative of his voice, and is more or less pleased. The producer sits directly behind him, telling the director where he strayed from their ideals, and applauding the film’s brilliance. For the screenwriter, the film is both fine and utterly unsatisfying. He needs more; he does not feel that the director truly understands what he was trying to communicate, and that the producer went overboard in the editing room. Wait. What does that mean? The director starts to comprehend something; something related to the strange symbols in the script which he tried to rationalize away. For some reasons these things are referencing some hidden theme, which he sees now during the screening (he is, of course, quite the bright director, and has to be to find these symbols within one screening). He lets out a sigh of consternation. Aha! That’s all I need! The screenwriter hears this sigh, and gets a bright idea. He runs out of the theater; the producer looks back, wondering what that mad man-child is up to now.

The film continues on, nearing its end. The director seems less sure of the piece, now. There’s something the producer’s not telling him about this screenplay. It’s a good film, no doubt about it, but there’s something false about all of it. The producer has just slipped into sleep; guess he’ll miss the climax. Lurking in the shadows, the screenwriter sees the producer’s head bob, and seizes the moment. He dashes to the camera and woes the cinematographer with poetry. The screenwriter hands the cinematographer a new strip of film that contains all the missing elements of the script that were deleted; the screenwriter made the scenes by taking scenes from some of the director’s previous films. The cinematographer starts loading this into the camera. During the chaos of switching reels, the producer wakes up, and quickly realizes what’s happening. He rushes to the camera and arrives just before the new film starts. He tries to rip the film out of the camera, and a small fire ensues. The film catches fire, the camera stops rolling, and the screenwriter starts screaming. MsitonpyH!

The director, who has up to this point stared continuously at the screen, slowly turns to look at the commotion. The producer panics, not wanting the director to speak with the screenwriter or wanting the screenwriter around the camera and cinematographer any longer. He rushes to the screaming screenwriter and tries to no avail to force him to quiet down. He looks at the mangled film in the screenwriter’s hand, at the director’s eyes slowly turning towards all this, and orders the cinematographer to play the burnt film in desperation. The cinematographer complies, the screenwriter calms down, the director turns his attention back to the screen. The director is hypnotized by this wild and experimental portion of ‘his’ film now on screen, certain that he did not make this, but freaked out because he recognizes some of the images as his own. There is something about its mangled, firework, layered images. Am I really seeing this? This film too ends, as does the day and night, and this entire crew, all representatives of different functions and spatio-temporal locales of the psyche-in-society, comes to attention once again to make a million more films in a new day.

The screenwriter is Mr. Id, the producer Mr. Super-Ego, the director Mr. Pcs.Ego, the cinematographer Mr. Cs.Ego, the camera Mr. Perceptive Systems, and the first film is called ‘The Reality-Concept,’ and the final film was a piece of the original screenplay, entitled ‘The Surreality of Reality.’ What we have is an analogy for the mechanisms of the psyche-in-society; a crude analogy, and only one possible analogy amongst many, but an analogy which nevertheless allows for some interesting speculation. By relating psychoanalytic theory to the production of cinema, one is bound to run across meanings and concepts that may aid the practice and experience of both Psychoanalysis and cinema. Throughout the work of Freud one finds passages that allow for iterations along cinematic lines, and Psychoanalysis has of course historically affected the practice of filmmakers, directly and indirectly. In the essay to follow, we will be looking directly at psychoanalytic theory with the perspective of a filmmaker looking to create a synthesized theory of psychoanalysis in cinema.

The synthesis of course comes after the accumulation, and our accumulation will be a dialectical one; Freud’s ideas shall be the departure point from which our speculation begins. Just as psychoanalytic theory ranges the gamut of psychosocial experiences, so shall our speculation range the gamut of cinematic production, interpretation, and experience. We shall have cinematic ruminations regarding dreams, repression, neurosis, thought, visual thinking, the role and function of psychoanalysis, etc. Our strange filmmaking analogy shall act as a guide for our speculation; will move from the screenwriter Mr. Id all the way to the mangled ‘Surreality of Reality’ which was the dream. However, Psychoanalysis is a system of related forces, and as such we will have recourse both to discussing other ‘characters’ while ruminating on any one, as well as altering our analogies and examples in order to more complexly illustrate our intuitions. We shall arrive at a list of possible practices to be incorporated into a systematized theory, film movement, or film genre, which might be called Psychoanalytic Cinema, Dream Cinema, or Surrealist Cinema; one that we shall call Surreal Relational Cinemart.




Conclusion:
Secrets Of The Magical Surrelational Cinemart



Our venture through Psychoanalysis, our interview with the master and our interrogation of the production team, have left us with more than a little insight towards the end of constructing a system of Surreal Relational Cinemart; which, in the end of simplicity, we shall from here forth call Surrelational Cinemart. We shall present the most general conclusions we arrived at. The Surrealists never came up with a theory of Surrealist Cinema; their heir, King Rucks and the Relationalists, shall here, in the Age of Aquarius, amend this omission.

The mad screenwriter woes the cinematographer into showing the Surreality of Reality, but the producer sets it ablaze and distorts it. They play it anyway, and the director turns his attention back to the screen. The director is hypnotized by this wild and experimental portion of ‘his’ film now on screen, certain that he did not make this, but freaked out because he recognizes some of the images as his own. There is something about its mangled, firework, layered images. Am I really seeing this? We must be the mad screenwriter of our shared social world, we the auteurs behind Surrelational Cinemart.

We, who have witnessed the philosophical extension of Psychoanalysis. We see that there is no opposition between Eros and Thanatos, that life is the back-forth rhythm that occurs between these two as ideal limits; indeed, we have passed beyond all oppositions, even subject/object, sexuality/cruelty, and Reality and the Surreality of Reality. We found that there are functions within even the normal psyche which can nevertheless be described as psychotic (disavowal, dreams), and used this insight to show that there is a very real Surreality to Reality.

We, who have seen the power of perspective in the operations of the psyche-in-society, and are prepared to use this insight towards our ends. We must challenge the Ego’s unconscious claim to absolute perspective; careful not to loose anxiety, yet affecting the Ego to make it mindful of its limitations, and potential. Whenever the Ego’s claim to absolute perspective (in a particular Reality-Concept) is challenged, a form of narcisstic wound occurs; a reassessment of the Reality-Concept is then engendered, and this must always have a relatively large affect on the psyche-in-society. Creating such a reassessment in the Reality-Concept (worldview or subjectivity) of the Ego is one of the main functions of Surrelational Cinemart (and art in general); in many ways, it is the most we could ever hope for.

We who have seen the hidden though powerful effect of repetition, and are prepared to catalyze waves of repetition that will potentially alter entire ecosystems. Our cinemart will feed off of repetition; as an editing technique, it shall aid us in awakening memory, and we will utilize repetition as a further attempt to speak the language of the primary process. Repetition shall be an element of the ground of our Surreal Relational Cinemart. The simplest repetition can lead to transformative change (social or psychical); just saying hello to your neighbor everyday, or just repeating the image of a tabooed scene of miscegenation, can lead to a form of a shift in the psyche-in-society’s Reality-Concept. Our Surrelational Cinemart will seek to both use and catalyze the force of Repetition towards our ends.

We know that our art, as only avant-garde art, striving ultimately ineffectively to break the back of old conventions and expectations, can achieve its transformational ends only by degree. We are slowed once more towards our truly medicinal and therapeutic end, as long held psychological issues take extended periods to alter. We know that we are limited due to the loss of the analyst/patient relationship, and the lack of the specific case history of the viewer; for some, this most logically eliminate any real medicinal or therapeutic potential for our cinemart. We are limited to assuming general resistances and defensive mechanisms. We can and shall hypothesize great potential for our cinemart, for the creation of concepts, however idealist or metaphysical, is an avant-garde act, is an historical act, and an act worth taking if at all attached to relational ends; however, we have no misgivings that what we have written here as any value. Not as words written, trains of thoughts followed, or even as Relations and Traces revealed; the materiality of history, the work of producing cinemart and testing theories, the Relational Praxis of creation and situation, these shall give our theories their value.

The aim of Surrelational Cinemart is nothing less than to expand the Pcs.Ego, as well as offer it new values with which to censor and manage its internal and external perceptions and actions. Our visual cure attempts to release the viewer from self-alienation (normal in the performance principle) and self-repression, by relating its Pcs.Ego to its repressed psychosomatic impulses, depriving motives of resistance of their value, replacing these motives with more powerful ones, and working as a representative of a freer or superior Reality-Concept in which the Id need not be [unsuccessfully] dominated, for its needs have been worked into the new reality principle of the viewer in its relation to Others. The extreme turning away from the World as external-Other in psychosis, and the Surreality of Reality, such that any-thing can have enough symbolic value to affect the unsuspecting Cs.Ego in surreal ways, is why we are confident that our cinemart can potentially engender art-experiences which alter the viewer’s relationship to its Reality-Concept, its perspective and relationship to the Other, such that evolutions in the historical reality-principle become possible as well.

Our Surrelational Cinemart is the visual cure, which nonetheless gives more power to the Pcs.Ego. We shall not be putting memories into words, but find memories in images and words. We will attempt to locate the imagistic language of the Id, whereby we can communicate with the Id with more power than the talking cure can. Our use of words shall varying along two lines, instructive and prescriptive, and poetic and symbolical. As we need a participating audience, we shall always provide captions, instructions, and particular words to attach (or not) to the types of events occurring during the cure. We know that attaching words to memories modifies repression, so we will have recourse, usually before or after the duration of the piece, to speaking plainly and prescriptively. We shall also prescribe dialogue after each of our cinemart pieces, so that the thoughts that have become vaguely conscious do not lose enough cathexis to be suppressed and forgotten. For the most part, however, our use of words shall be a continuation of our dream-language; poetic, and symbolic. Even our use of words shall be symbolic and poetic rather than descriptive/analytic. Our cinemart shall use the tools of cinema, time and mechanically recorded reality shot from certain perspectives, to engender the visual thinking of the depths of the psyche-in-society.

Our’s is a cinema of memory, regression, hallucination, an active and relating spectator self-analyzing their associations. Our’s is a rhythmic cinemart in/flux, a perverted cinema which shall ride the bridge of sexuality, fantasy, and the theme of the parent (as a link to repressed ideas and memories) towards deeper layers of the psyche. Our cinemart shall be focused on the repressed and directing ideas behind understanding, and will attempt to reveal and transform the hidden drives which figure so prominently in the psychical life of the psyche-in-society. If we are able to transform (or cause the self-transformation) of Ucs. directing ideas such that they direct certain wishes and impulses into certain trains of thoughts, we may be able to transform the circuitry of the psyche such that the never-ending drives lead to never-ending affirmations of a life of Relational Praxis.

Just as Breton wrote in the Surrealist Manifesto that “Surrealism...creates a certain state of need and can push man to frightful revolts,” the need to discharge cathexis during and after our cinemart might be substantial enough to create such frightful revolts. We face the threat of this energy being transformed into anxiety (discomfort) if not discharged through action. As such, we want the viewer to feel impelled to act, in new relational ways. Our cinemart prescribes acting out during and after the experiences in association and relational praxis. We anticipate the viewers’ active self-interpretation; acting out by allowing associations to happen and following them as they occur. We will also look for the viewer to act out as taking practical action after the cinemart experience in order to practically overcome the repression. Even if impulses and repressions are made conscious, not acting on them could drain these insights of attention, and the viewer faces the danger of forgetting these insights and merely repeating in the aid of defense. As such, we will be transforming acting out into remembering through associative action, allowing the patient to overcome self-repression, and begin to act out in a world seen from a qualitatively transformed Reality-Concept or Worldview centered around new ends and new meanings attached to certain relationships.

Ours is a Relational Cinemart because we shall systemize the use of certain relational tools, such as relational images and symbols (nodal-point images, like a baby’s toy, or the face of a God), relational montage techniques where the theme or dream-content is presented in the relation of images to others, and relational transitional techniques (such as the Flux, or repetition) which shall allow us to open up different association tracks with which we can attempt to befuddle the defenses of the Cs.Ego. Ours is a Relational Cinemart as the ‘meaning’ of our cinemart will arrive from the relation of the theme of the piece to the viewer’s own imaginings; the relation of the content of the piece (the resistances, ideas, etc we present) to the ecology of the psyche of the viewer. Surreal Relational Cinemart is only the opportunity, the situation, which is nothing without the viewer as participant/experiencer/patient.

This then is Psychoanalysis as cinematic practice as cinemart as Relational Art as Surrelational Cinemart. Go, make cinemart, and heal this repressed World!

The Self-Writing Continues...

In the last month or so, I have completed an essay of great importance to me, and I have performed poetry during a presentation of The Fiction of Customs at an NYU black history month event. We here reproduce the conclusion from the essay and the poem which introduced the performance. [ Regarding the current events, one can still only accept the policies of the Pepsi adminstration with a grain of salt mixed with a dash of optimism. Let us hope that the reckoning the elites have unleashed upon the American worker is not as harsh as it potentially could be.]

Becoming and Relationality:
A Dialectical essay on Relational Ontology

CONCLUSION:



In the pursuit of being-historical, we have constructed Relational Ontology and Dialectical Psychoanalysis; well, we’ve at least tried. Our attempt was to use the late Sartre’s conceptual system, dialectical reason, to reassess and amalgamate the theories of the existentialist Sartre and the psychoanalytical Freud. This was always already only a subjective process aiming towards the level of a historical post-philosophical system; we had hoped to gain some validity for this aim by taking the dialectical materialism of the late Sartre seriously. The question, then, is would the late Sartre generally agree or disagree with our endeavors here?

Throughout the essay, we have tried to springboard off of Sartre; either through negating him along lines he himself follows (i.e. negating his analytical thinking and making it dialectical), or finding original insights by following down lanes he himself opened up. We feel as though we have written very little original; most of our ideas are Sartrean in one form or another. For example, the Dialectical Psychoanalytic conception of freedom and authenticity is straightforwardly that of the late Sartre. Where we arrived at seemingly original ideas, even those that seem contrary to the published ideas of Sartre, it seems that the divergence relates to our central endeavor of relating the existentialist Sartre to the historical materialist Sartre, and both of these to a dialectical reading of Freud.

Relationtology views existence as a grand Becoming swimming in a sea of Relationality. There are no objects or phenomenon that have an essential identity; existence is evolution, entropy, action, and difference from Others, and these laws destroy the ‘is-ness,’ or being, of all existents. Even the Present where such objects might appear as-if-is is connected and related to History, such that every Present is itself becoming, and all events which occur in the Present must themselves be becoming. Relationtology understands humen and humen society as historical and ecological i.e. always already related to all Others in the ecology of humen society. Finally, Relationtology sees the psyche-in-society as becoming and relational, and thus leads to Dialectical Psychoanalysis.

Dialectical Psychoanalysis seeks to understand the unseen forces that condition the psyche-in-society, as well as the existential events/experiences that affect the functioning of the psyche-in-society. Forces such as need, which was found to provide impetus for the further development of the ego, its world-concept, and its thought and praxis, gain ontological importance to the psyche-in-society. As does the concept of the Other, and the relationship of withdrawal (a form of separation and alienation) which forever plagues and conditions the psyche-in-society and life.

Dialectical Psychoanalysis understands the importance of the Pcs.Ego (the preconscious ego; the portions of the Ego which can become conscious if given attention; the site of meaning, thought, langauge, and fantasy), placing it at the center of the being-becoming that is the psyche-in-society. The Pcs.Ego becomes the symbol of Becoming in the psyche, and Cs. (consciousness, the conscious ego |Cs.Ego|, or the Pcs.Ego becoming-conscious) becomes the symbol of Relationality. Only what the Pcs.Ego gives attention to by being-conscious of an-Other is given space in the world-concept or Reality of the psyche-in-society; the Pcs.Ego is central to the construction of the world-concepts of both the internal and external Other that is Reality, and this insight causes us to find a dialectical, and not analytical and empirical, relationship between the psyche-in-society and its Reality. Lastly, Dialectical Psychoanalysis understands that authentic praxis, as direct activity by a fused group against an-Other (either seriality, negative force, practico-inert, humen and social others, or limits to possibilities), is the highest form of authenticity and freedom that the psyche-in-society can attain.

Relationtology and Dialectical Psychoanalysis, just as Becoming and Relationality, come with each other or they do not come at all. Despite our attempts, our loosest concepts, even Relationality, are only constructions and projections of our psyches, and as such the insights of Relationtology can only be grasped if the insights of Dialectical Psychoanalysis are grasped, and vice-versa. If our treatise on these two truly forwards a system, it is a system that has as of yet been only unsatisfactorily elucidated and explicated. It is up to history, and humen as history, and you the reader as an ‘enlightened’ and related humen, to carry forth the systematization of Relationtology and Dialectical Psychoanalysis.

This Day, Too, Will Come


The people,
united,
grimaces on taut faces,
sweat runs south as anger comes out to play
on the faces of millions of clothed mammals,
hands held tight and raised,
eyes watching power’s last dance.
Men, women, child democrats
voting through shouts and knowledge
the general will:
the end of now’s Elitism.

The people united,
will never
re-shackle chains for the body,
never unbend bent bars on the mind’s cage,
never fold to old synthetic sleep with
constructed, plastic dreams of hegemony,
never unthink thoughts thought till now
only in shaded parts of patrolled Red wood forests
of the enslaved psyche; thoughts of freedom
that now rise to the height of green above brown branches
dancing to the strong wind rhythm of unstoppable change.

The people united will never
be defeated
by the gravity of sloped hills of complicit laws,
by the armed stones tumbling down in uniform,
aiming their weaponry only at themselves.
Never be defeated by the threats of thin air at the top,
by the lies of the steepness of this ragged hill,
of the weakness of feet, legs, toes, working hand’s man,
by the lies of the privileging grit
of those white and gray select few madmen
who perch at the peak and rule all beneath.

No, no.
Neither lies nor truth nor arms nor boots.
No not now nor later nor satan nor savior.
Neither guns nor bread nor heads nor dregs,
will do to do what seems to have been done
once humans see freedom in their being One.

Never
will the people
united be defeated.


Come, will this day too?
This day, too, will come.

Inauguration Time!

The capitol of the Empire, 

the cold wind of D.C., 

the Inauguration of President Pepsi Obama. 

Having had braved the cold, crowds, for the occasion, affirming the wave of change (however minuscule or grand) which must surely follow this day if only as much as any other day, I in I must say that the possibilities for a USA that is actually-in-substance United have grown exponentially. President Pepsi is no radical progressive, but he is a progressive politician riding the backlash wave of reaction against the Neo-Conservative agenda, so radical change seems poised to crash on into the 'first 100 days' of the rest of history, right...?

Time shall tell. But time told. 

And told and told and told.

Time told of how old the world once was.

The Past showed its [arse] and its time had passed.

Time tells of the faint bells that once rung

in the ears of a nation whose hearing had been undone.

Disarmed, disabled, by loud talking psychopathic top 5%ers

centered on dismembering the system as it was.

Time told of the people's time old enslavement,

herded by the storm Gods in Washington or Athens.

Time already spoke of the people's ears opening

as mouths shut on emptiness, eyes woke to chaos,

body now so real for so unfulfilled in a crumbling nation.

Time said it was just a matter of time

and the matter of time unwinds in the lines

of the newly risen Christ Executive Officer. 

Time told of the ups and downs of the years to follow,

the years that preceded and the years lost.

Time told that the new rose from the old,

that the old limited the new in these times,

that the new danced to dry the blood tears

of the same old Old Captain Capital that the old obeyed.

Time told us that a US president is still just a US president.

Hell, Time could tell you all about President's, let me tell ya...

Time told I in I that change begins in the subjectivity of the self; change begins in you. 

Look at your Self, own up to the faults, envision the future, and change your Self.

Barack Obama, and the public relations firm that ran his campaign, changed the American people, and thus changed the history of the country. 

As I in I am trapped in the confines of the Now, 

Time will not speak of the details of this change to come. 

"Who cares anyway," Time says, "you young punks 

finally heard what I've been trying to say for like forever:

Know thyself, then change thyself, and ye may change the World.

...

Ya bunch a dummies."

Whatever President Pepsi does, through the unprecedented gesture of sacrificing my time and comfort to affirm the possibilities for radical progressive change within the system, and partaking in 'The Inauguration", I in I have changed my Self, and the World must only follow... 

That's assuming Time is right, and that blabbermouth goofs definitely senile.