the image, & the fold (in-)of love. (Joyce / Žižek). (—why I write). …

Mark Bolsover’s story, “the Super-Blood moon (—eclipsed), the hunt, & the… “tuppenny upright” published in Issue I. 

 

… it’s always a somewhat difficult, awkward, and… embarrassing thing to be asked to say what your work… is.

—I also find that, despite having gone quite so far as to research and write a doctoral thesis, unpacking my artistic and literary influences and the concepts that I would like to underpin my work, that it is quite another thing to try to explain the actual process of writing.

—with many thanks, then, … (—?) (esp.) to Christian Butterfield, and the Farside Review Features Editorial team for the opportunity to attempt something ineluctably_(…) odd, … and—uncomfortable.

(—and it’s my hope that all possible readers of this short ‘essay’ will feel the same way. … ).

…

rather, then, than give a blow-by-blow account (so to) of the process of writing ‘the Super-Blood Moon (—eclipsed),’ … I want here to (—try to) _(…) —lay – out what I think is the core of my ideas here, to give (I hope) a clear(?) sense of what (—what kind/perception of the experience… ) this piece, and my work-writing more generally are—attempts-to-respond-to. …

—I want to (briefly) look at the concept(s) of the ‘epiphany,’ and of the ‘image’ in James Joyce’s earlier fiction (—the Stephen Hero (—ed. Theodore Spencer (London: Paladin, 1991), (hereafter—SH),—draft ms. of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Portrait itself (London: Penguin, 1992). (hereafter—Portrait). … ), before moving on to draw out some of the (philosophical, and what I think are the artistic) consequences (so to) by looking at what Slavoj Žižek has to say about love. (—in Absolute Recoil). …    

(and then I’ll actually write something briefly about what my writing is about, … —how does that sound? … ).

 

—the evolution of the ‘epiphany’ into the ‘image’

between James Joyce’s Stephen Hero & A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man…

—the ‘Epiphany’ (-the—epiphanic. …). …

 

By an epiphany he meant a sudden spiritual manifestation, whether in the vulgarity of speech or of gesture or in a memorable phase of the mind itself. He believed it was for the man of letters to record these epiphanies with extreme care, seeing that they themselves are the most delicate and evanescent of moments. (Joyce, SH, 216) 

…

 

epiphany.

…

… —a revelation. (—a making(-made)—manifest. … ). …

—a sudden(-suddenly) becoming visible, or sensible,—of something which had existed prior to the experience of its revelation, and yet which had remained (somehow) insensible, and (thus) only (ever)—latent. …

…

—the ‘epiphany,’ then, represents a bathetic – structure(-shape) of ironic inversion (—a sudden reversal( – fall-drop)  in perceived-apparent tone… ),—suddenly and spontaneously revealing previously repressed psychic (—psychological) content, and thus bringing about a fundamental change in consciousness. …

(—Florence L. Walzl provides the best summation of the term epiphany itself,—the etymology and the meaning of the Greek term, … arguing that…

What Joyce meant by the term epiphany may be deduced etymologically. The basic meaning in Greek of έπιφάυεια is appearance or manifestation, and the word is related to a verb meaning to display or show forth and in the passive and middle voice to shine forth. In the early Christian period epiphaneia developed a religious denotation as a “visible manifestation of hidden divinity either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known.”

(—‘The Liturgy of the Epiphany Season and the Epiphanies of Joyce,’ PMLA, 80 (1965),—436-450 (436). …

—Walzl cites William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich,—A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957).

… ).

 

—the qualities of ‘beauty’ / —the phases of ‘artistic apprehension’. …

—the shape (, then,)—of the (‘esthetic’) ‘image’. …

 

*Stephen Hero:   —You know what Aquinas says: The three things requisite for beauty are, integrity, a wholeness, symmetry and radiance. (217)

*Portrait:   —To finish what I was saying about beauty, said Stephen, the most satisfying relations of the sensible must therefore correspond to the necessary phases of artistic apprehension. Find these and you will find the qualities of universal beauty. Aquinas says: ad pulcritudinem tria requiruntur, integritas, consonantia, claritas. I translate it so: Three things are needed for beauty, wholeness, harmony and radiance. (229)

…

 

—in both texts, Stephen’s ostensible purpose is to interpret Aquinas’s definition of the conditions which it is necessary for a phenomenon to fulfil in order for it to be considered beautiful. …

… —the Stephen Hero extract comprises a simple paraphrasing of Aquinas’s definition. …

—the first quality requisite for beauty is vaguely defined here as ‘integrity,’ … —suggestive of—the persisting self-identity of the phenomenon. …

Stephen also defines it as ‘wholeness,’… which suggests that the object does not lack any essential elements, …

—that it is… —complete. …

…

—in Stephen’s phrasing, integrity precedes wholeness in the definition of the first quality and this lends his definition an indistinctness, as it remains unclear if he means by that that the phenomenon must possess a wholeness, a completeness which persists—which is—integral, … —through – time. …

 

…

 

—the second quality, Stephen defines as ‘symmetry’. …

… —that is, … in order to be considered beautiful the object must be symmetrical. …

(—and this is relatively straightforward. …

—there must be a… —cleanness(-cleanliness), … —simplicity, and, … —geometry(-geometric.—balance.—identity-reflection through a central line).  … ).

 

…

 

 

—the final quality Stephen defines as—‘radiance’. …

… —the object must be radiant. …

… —must be illuminating… —in order to be considered beautiful, … though, at this stage, … Stephen offers no definition of this ‘radiance’ or how it is (to be)—achieved. …

…

in Stephen Hero Stephen provides no specific context for his definition of beauty.

—he refers to no specific type of experience, but to all sensible experience.

…

in the (—far more substantial) Portrait extract,—by contrast, … Stephen’s later textual incarnation seeks to define ‘beauty,’… not simply as an experience of general quotidian consciousness, but, instead, as it realised through the ‘phases’—of ‘artistic apprehension’. …

—it qualifies the earlier general definition of beauty by making it conditional upon a knowledge of how an object of quotidian experience is (essentially) transformed by-through a specific type of experience…

—into the subject matter of-for (—into) art. …

 

…

 

… —having identified, in outline, the qualities of beauty/‘phases of artistic apprehension’, in both texts Stephen then moves on to define the first quality or ‘phase’…

Your mind to apprehend that object divides the entire universe into two parts, the object, and the void which is not the object. To apprehend it you must lift it away from everything else: and then you perceive that it is one integral thing, that it is a thing. […] That is the first quality of beauty it is declared in a simple sudden synthesis of the faculty which apprehends. (217)

The first phase of apprehension is a boundary line drawn about the object to be apprehended. An esthetic image is presented to us in either space or in time. What is audible is presented in time. What is visible is presented in space. But, temporal or spatial, the esthetic image is first luminously apprehended as selfbounded and selfcontained upon the immeasurable background of space or time which it is not. You apprehend it as one thing. You see it as one whole. You apprehend its wholeness. That is integritas. (230)

 

…

—the terms of the Stephen Hero extract are deceptive. …

… —to suggest that the ‘synthesis’ of or within the ‘faculty which apprehends’ (which he will go on in his incarnation in Portrait to qualify as the faculties of the ‘audible’ and ‘visible’… ) is in any way ‘simple,’… overlooks the complexity of the extract’s own central claim that the object is only apprehended when it is extracted from the sensuous continuum (‘v the all-else) in which it is otherwise lost…

—‘you must lift it away from everything else’. …

…

—this… —sensory – extraction is accomplished—spontaneously. …

—it is involuntary. …

… —it constitutes, then, a chance coincidence in apprehension, … —a sudden, unexpected alteration in the relationship of the subject and-to the object… —an alteration that precipitates the division of the ‘entire [apprehended] universe’ into, on the one hand,—‘the object,’ and, on the other,—‘the void’ of all else that is ‘not the object’. …

(hmm).

…

—a chance relation… —a coincidence… —brings the object into (a)—stark relief with(-to) its surroundings-environs, … (in effect)… —foregrounding it, … and allowing the observer—for the first time… —to become (again, … in effect,—paradoxically… )… —defamiliarised with the object, … and to (truly) see the object—as(-qua) object. …

( … —and not, then, as merely another, undifferentiated, piece of the complacency-inducing_(…) tableau (so to) that is the world of quotidian consciousness. … ). …

…

—the ‘first quality of beauty’ constitutes, then, … —the revelation of the object. …

… —its extraction from the invisibility that it was subject to in the complacency of quotidian apprehension.

…

—in Portrait, Stephen goes on to elucidate this… moment (and, … again, … —the terms are essentially a more refined articulation of the same idea here… ), as …

—the drawing of a ‘boundary line’ in consciousness—around the object. …

…

—a ‘boundary line’.

(—around the object. … ).

…

… —this serves to emphasise the nature of separation and foregrounding in the first ‘phase of artistic apprehension,’… and the differentiation of the object being apprehended from ‘everything else’. …

(that is, … )… —‘the immeasurable background of space or time which it is not’. …

…

—the first phase… —in both texts, then—defines the object…

—negatively. …

…

—this reveals the object, bringing it into a stark relief, and serves to push-to propel all else in perception into an indistinguishable,—and ‘immeasurable’… —background. …

…

—it’s this which accounts for what, in both his textual incarnations, Stephen is at pains to stress is the illuminating or luminous… quality of this first moment, and, further, (and,— why not—? … )… accounts for the appearance of the object’s ‘wholeness’ (—of ‘integritas’). …

… —the object is no longer subsumed under, or within, the—conventional complacency in-of quotidian consciousness, but is isolated and illuminated as object. …

 

…

 

… —having defined ‘integritas’, Stephen now (—then) moves on, in both texts, to define the second ‘quality of beauty’ or ‘phase’ of ‘artistic apprehension,’ which results from the revelation of this ‘integrity’ or ‘wholeness’ in-of the object…

The mind considers the object in whole and in part, in relation to itself and to other objects, examines the balance of its parts, contemplates the form of the object, traverses every cranny of the structure. So the mind receives the impression of the symmetry of the object. The mind recognises that the object is in the strict sense of the word, a thing, a definitely constituted entity. (217-218)

Then, said Stephen, you pass from point to point, led by its [the object’s] formal lines […] you feel the rhythm of its structure. [… T]he synthesis of immediate perception is followed by the analysis of apprehension. Having first felt that it is one thing you feel now that it is a thing. You apprehend it as complex, multiple, divisible, separable, made up of its parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious. That is consonantia. (230)

 

…

 

in both texts, Stephen dubs this phase of consonantia ‘Analysis,’… —the ‘analysis of apprehension’. …

( … —it’s only at this point—in his definition of the second phase of ‘artistic apprehension’ in Portrait—that he refers to the first phase as the ‘synthesis’ defined earlier in Stephen Hero. … ).

…

—the revelation of the object (as-qua object. … ), … and its differentiation from everything else in the continuum of sensory perception (so to) in its ‘synthesis,’… allows its—previously unheeded—structure to be examined for the first time. …

… —both the object as a whole, and its manifold parts… —passing from ‘point to point’… —with a care and attention never possible prior to this revelation. …

—as – object. …

…

—the second stage of revelation, … —proceeding from the negative differentiation of the object from its surroundings, to an identification and analysis of the positive content or qualities of the object as ‘a thing,’ creates (—perhaps unsurprisingly) an—‘impression,’ on the apprehending subject. …

—the subject now becomes aware of the object’s complexity and its internal harmony. …

 

…

 

having thus been (thus) revealed in isolation, and (, then, subsequently,) examined, … —the object must now fulfil the criterion of the ‘third quality’ of beauty, or, … —in the terms of Portrait, … —both the object and the artist are enabled to pass into the third phase of ‘artistic apprehension,’ … which Stephen, in both texts, following Aquinas’s terminology identifies as—‘claritas’. …

For a long time I couldn’t make out what Aquinas meant. He uses a figurative word (a very unusual thing for him) but I have solved it.  Claritas is quidditas. After the analysis the mind makes the only logically possible synthesis and discovers the third quality. This is the moment which I call epiphany.  First we recognise that the object is one integral thing, then we recognise that it is an organised composite structure, a thing in fact: finally, when the relation of the parts is exquisite, when the parts are adjusted to the special point, we recognise that it is that thing which it is. Its soul, its whatness, leaps to us from the vestment of its appearance. The soul of the commonest object, the structure of which is so adjusted, seems to us radiant. The object achieves its epiphany. (218)

Aquinas uses a term which seems to be inexact. It baffled me for a long time. It would lead you to believe that he had in mind symbolism or idealism, the supreme quality of beauty being a light from some other world, the idea of which the matter is but a shadow, the reality of which it is but the symbol. I thought he might mean that claritas is the artistic discovery and representation of the divine purpose in anything or a force of generalisation which would make the esthetic image a universal one, make it outshine its proper conditions. But that is literary talk. [… Y]ou make the only synthesis which is logically and esthetically permissible. You see that it is that thing which it is and no other thing. The radiance of which he speaks is the scholastic quidditas, the whatness of a thing. This supreme quality is felt by the artist when the esthetic image is first conceived in his imagination. […] The instant wherein that supreme quality of beauty, the clear radiance of the esthetic image is apprehended luminously by the mind which has been arrested by its wholeness and fascinated by its harmony is the luminous silent stasis of esthetic pleasure, a spiritual state. (230-231)

…

 

in Stephen Hero, … —Stephen argues that, following the stages of ‘synthesis’ and ‘analysis,’ the apprehending subject now proceeds to make ‘the only logically possible synthesis’. …

…

—having revealed the object as one thing, and, subsequently, as a complex whole comprised of various qualities and parts in (a) harmonious relation, … —‘the mind’ of the apprehending subject now takes the, for Stephen, necessary step of—‘synthesising’ these two stages. …

…

—this occurs when the ‘parts’ of the object ‘are adjusted to the special point’ which he dubs… —‘exquisite’. …

…

—combining the consciousness of the object as one – thing, and as (a) complex (yes)., Stephen argues, … —allows the apprehending subject for the first time to ‘recognise’ the object. …

…

—in the synthesis of these two stages the parts of the object are adjusted in-within consciousness to reveal an uncommon completeness and high degree of perfection, previously repressed or overlooked in-within quotidian experience. …

…

Stephen aims to express, I would argue, the concept of the object’s becoming a… —lens. … —a medium (—of sorts), … —through which its ‘essence,’ then, (sic.)…

—shines – forth. …

…

… —the interpretation of claritas as ‘radiance’ only goes so far as to identify the fact of the shining forth, however, … and cannot name, … or describe, … what is shown forth within (or, rather—through… ) this—‘radiance’. …

…

—Stephen solves this problem by identifying claritas with quidditas…

… —‘we recognise that it is that thing which it is. Its soul, its whatness, leaps to us from the vestment of its appearance’. …

…

—in claritas, … —the… —‘whatness’ ( … —the—quidditas-quiddity) of the object is revealed. …

—for Stephen, … —quidditas is the content of claritas, and claritas, in turn, is the means by which the quidditas of the object is revealed. …

… —this is the moment that Stephen, in Stephen Hero, names ‘epiphany’. …

…

… —the object is extracted from quotidian consciousness, and its previously repressed, or overlooked, quiddity… —‘that thing which it is’… —‘leaps’ from the ‘vestment’ of this (former) appearance, in which it had been shrouded, … —and the object ‘achieves’ its epiphany. …

…

… —the ‘epiphany’, then, constitutes the revelation of the quiddity of the object, precipitated by a chance coincidence of a change or exquisite arrangement in the disposition of the object with a concomitant change in the disposition of the observer.

…

—I’d argue that, in Stephen’s account, the… new – seeing ( … —new, epistemological, act-form) represents, precisely, …  —the recognition of the object.—(as if) for the first time. …

…

—the revelation of a previous… —inattention to the object. … —an assumed recognition of the object (—if you will…), as simply (—a having been taken for) another, … —easily dismissed, fragment of the furniture in-of the quotidian. …

—recognition of the object (—as-qua object), … pulls-tears it from the oblivion of this complacency-assumed recognition. … —defamiliarises the object (—the observer from the object), and inaugurates a new seeing (—epistemology). … ).

…

… —the synthesis of claritas and quidditas in Portrait concerns…

—the process of the creation of a work of art. …

[F]inally, when the relation of the parts is exquisite, when the parts are adjusted to the special point, we recognise that it is that thing which it is. Its soul, its whatness, leaps to us from the vestment of its appearance.

The radiance of which he speaks is the scholastic quidditas, the whatness of a thing. This supreme quality is felt by the artist when the esthetic image is first conceived in his imagination.

…

 

… —the ‘exquisite’ relation of the parts of the object is replaced by the artist’s—‘feeling’. …

the ‘recognition’ of the apprehending subject (… —the (awkward) ‘we’ of Stephen Hero… ), is supplanted by the experience of inspiration of (or for) the artist. …

that is, … —the_(…) —intuition (yes) of the quiddity of the object, and the ‘supreme quality’ of beauty, becomes the inspiration for the creation of art. …

… —the ‘leap’ of the essence of the object (—in-of Stephen Hero) becomes (—is incorporated into… ) the formation of the (—‘esthetic’) image in the artist’s imagination in Portrait. …

…

the ‘esthetic image’, then, … represents the refining(-refinement) of the earlier ‘epiphany,’… —from a concept applied to general experience and still explicitly loaded with religious (—and metaphysical)… —baggage, … to one concerned specifically with artistic inspiration and creation…

… —with art.

…

—the (‘esthetic’) image, then, retains the_(…) structure… —the shape (yes)—of the ‘epiphany,’ …  —developing from a foundation in an ironic appropriation of Aquinas’s concept of beauty. …

… —the coincidence ( … —co-incidence. … ), … —of a change in the disposition of the observer—the artist—with a (concomitant) change in the disposition of the object-thing ( … —become, here, … —model. … ), … in which what-the-object-had-been-taken-to-be (that is, … —the apparent object-complacent), is undone. …

… and the artist’s consciousness-perception of the object, … as well as their own ‘self’-perception (—the “self”… —as-had-taken-it-to-be… ) undergo an ironic inversion (… —bathetic. (—bathos)… ), … —suddenly, spontaneously, and involuntarily, … revealing a, previously repressed (-latent), psychic (—psychological) content, … and thus bringing about a fundamental change in consciousness. …

—the quiddity (quidditas) of the object (—for the artist) is illuminated-revealed (—claritas). …

—the shape of the (‘esthetic’) image. …

…

—in Portrait, the experience of ‘beauty’ in general consciousness of Stephen Hero is refined, and focussed into an analysis of the conditions of ‘artistic apprehension,’ …

—artistic inspiration, and the creation of the artwork. …

 

…

 

love. (& the fold).

(—the logic of the retroactive).

(Žižek).

…

 

… —a sudden(-suddenly) becoming visible, or sensible,—of something which had existed prior to the experience of its revelation, and yet which had remained (somehow) insensible, and (therefore-thus) only (ever)—latent. …

…

—a bathetic – structure(-shape) of ironic inversion,—suddenly and spontaneously revealing previously repressed psychic (—psychological) content, and thus bringing about a fundamental change in consciousness. …

…

—how to understand the ‘epiphany’ (—in fact, rather, … —the shape of the image. … ), …

—what it does. …

—its consequences.

… —?

 

…

 

—in Absolute Recoil, … —riffing (in effect,—for want … ) on Frank Ruda’s reading of the work of Alain Badiou, … — Žižek sets out to illustrate and to analyse (—the possibility of) a-the free – choice, and ‘the stages of the Event,’ through the example of the love – encounter. …

…

—love.

(—the encounter).

…

—a-the shattering – Event.

… —breaks – apart-lacerates the past (—the past shape of consciousness. … ),—as had taken it to be. (—apparently mistakenly). …

(—undoes-undercuts all that which had appeared to be. …

—reveals to me what I always was. (—produces me—retroactively). … ).

…

(precisely)—to fall in(-to) love. …

…

 

—a necessity.—a practical – ethical necessity (-imperative).

—to react.

…

—the shattering – Event. …

—the affirmation of the Event (which has already occurred… ) *(—of the encounter), … —shatters(-undermines) (extant) subject(ivity)—(re)organising (yes) the subject ( _(…) —a-the new shape of consciousness).

—constituting the subject (qua subject) as the product – creation (—art. … ), in-of the free (—the first truly free… ) decision—to affirm.

—around the Event.—out of a fidelity to it. (yes). (—ethics). …

… —(the) affirmation_(…) —brings – back the Event of which it is the affirmation.

—brings back the Event, then (thus),—as different (—to itself,—minus that affirmation). …

(—the ‘logic of retroactivity’).

…

(—yes. … ).

—the shape of a-the fold. … 

…

 

… —the subject_(…) —becomes ( … —only becomes) a subject (as subject, … —the I that says “I”. … ), … —retroactively. …

… —becomes what it was ( … —becomes who-‘nd-what they were. … )—already.

…

—the(…) ‘epiphany,’ … —the moment-Event that the artist-subject will attempt to capture in-within the image. …

—a-the love encounter.

( … —whose affirmation, … —fidelity to which, … —the ‘epiphany’-image-fragment will have attempted to embody. … ).

(—that which will have produced(-created) that sole, small quantum of freedom. … ).

…

—love. (, then,)… —as the condition(s) of the image (-epiphany). …

 

…

  

why I write such miserable, pretentious shit

(—part (ii).). …

 

So, then, … (and—Hell, _(…) —Why not? … ), …

… —(from my point of view, at least. … —) my work represents a_(…) series of Modernist-inspired fragments. … —experiments in psychological realism and (a certain form of what I hesitatingly call) prose-poetry *(—I’m aware that isn’t quite an accurate use of that term-concept), … —in the first person (—as if in the present tense, … ),

 

… —attempts to break apart conventional uses of language (—grammar, punctuation, syntax, typography… ) which serve to mask the detail(s) in-of psychological processes and experience. …

—aiming to_(…) articulate—moments-Events ( … —love – encounters—? … ), … —fragments of overheard conversation, encounters with others, found text(s) and images, and strange and intensely undergone dreams, that_(…) —stand – out (—ecstatic (ek stasis)) from the (—general, … complacent,—quotidian) flux (—yes) (in-)of experience, and serve to break apart the shape of consciousness ( … —complacency, … —(apparent) comfort – resting, … —prejudice – laziness, … (&c.). … )—as had taken it to be, …

… —strange bathetic moments-objects-images-text-events—encounters *(love), … —opening up new possibilities. …

( … —whose affirmation, … —fidelity to which, … —the ‘epiphany’-image-fragment will have attempted to embody. … ).

(—the shape of the fold. … ).

…

—in the case of ‘the Super-Blood Moon,’ (in particular)… —the fragment is an attempt to capture (—an attempted fidelity toward… )—the singular, or at least (extremely) rare, experience of being able to witness the conjunction of celestial events—the Super Moon (—large(r) in the sky than ordinarily), … —the Blood Moon (—steeped in (a) strange red-orange,—quasi-Biblical(?) glow (—Revelations). … ), … and the eclipse, … —all coinciding. …

( … —the rare excitement, … —anticipation, … —nerves, … —the strange, unnerving quality of seeing the Moon be different-from-itself. … ).

—the rareness of the_(…) emptiness (—no others out observing) of the cool-cold evening in the city.

—interrupted (or—framed, somehow, … (—?)) by the sudden pouncing of a fox(?) out foraging (—lurching at us from the undergrowth of the urban garden square) (—(a form of) lunacy—? … ).

(—unnerving (on top of unnerve)-disturbing. … ).

and the_(…) odd, slightly cheap and sordid spectacle of a young couple,—electric torch in hand, … —breaking into the gardens to the rear of our building, … —oddly dispassionately scoping – out a location for a_(…) tryst (—a… quick knee-trembler at best,(—surely?). … ).

…

—each treated as its own fragment, and yet (hopefully) all forming parts (-a sequence) of the same Event, … —punctuating one another in their strangeness. …