[si]n[ew]

Dreamcatcher

the modern world is immersed in idealistic ideology. what i mean to say is that most of us, without even thinking about desire for things to be whole, have an end, and somehow make sense as a totality. we are searching for the ‘whole’. but, let’s be honest, this is nothing more than an illusion.

psychoanalyst jacques lacan posited that language is born out of desire (i.e, we speak because we want); and also that we are fragmented people (and that this is a good thing; how i read it) and that we keep desiring things to fill us.

one possible way people desire the vulgar illusion (aka, idealism) of the whole is through communal connectivity (community). we want the ‘other’ to fulfill us (is this not also how some view marriage, narcotics, and so on?). and so what occurs is this version of the false whole is sustained by the illusion of being made ‘complete’ and in doing so rejects the fragmented self (the ‘real’ self).

imagine ourselves as a body (different from ‘having a body’) and one of the features of most bodies is the sinew. which is the tissue uniting flesh to bone. it gives us the ability to move and flex our muscles amongst other important things. what i would like to posit in a metaphorical sense is that our desire for this idealistic connectivity is like this sinew in that it presents itself to us as that which connects us the ‘other(s)’ in community, but in doing so (and in reality) is the very thing that tears/will tear us apart. for me this term is part of a developing lexicon of work i am going to be exploring on the end of idealism and the entrance of the fragmented self (aka, the real self). which also means we are a plurality of selves. to find one’s self is to only encounter a part of one’s self, not the whole self (because the whole self does not exist). what this then means is that we are compelled not by things to fulfill us or the perverse illusion of the whole, but rather we are drawn to discover the plural in the very essence of our being (ontology.

sinew is a bad thing because it projects wholeness when there is none. at one point a biblical author employs a body as a metaphor for how people should ‘work together’, but interesting enough he doesn’t end with us as a possible ‘truth’, but rather focusing on the fragmented self (i.e., some are an eye, foot, ear and so on). it is in the tearing away of our sinew where we are free to discover ourselves in the other, not because we ‘need’ them to fulfill some partial-object, but rather we have the choice to participate in discovering is part of ourselves in the other ( and vice-versa).

Advertisements

One comment

  1. Billy McMahon · June 27, 2012

    Hey I saw your article on the ooze concerning this and missions. I really like your thoughts as you explore selfhood. This reminds me somewhat of Roland Barthes’ death of the author

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s