Another possibility, from the mathematician Badiou

I myself have expressed the desire for a philosophy that would finally be the contemporary of Mallarme’s poetic operations.

This is from a chapter on a different poet though

Its thought is not yet worthy of Pessoa.

Bold. When it’s interdisciplinarity between poetry and math it’s more like I’m playing with a couple action figures. With this, it’s a lot more existential. I’m one of the action figures now.

Okay I’m listening

If Pessoa represents a singular challenge for philosophy, if his modernity is still ahead of us, remaining in many respects unexplored, it is because his thought-poem inaugurates a path that manages to be neither Platonic nor anti-Platonic.

I hadn’t considered a third option. He’s going to have to do some contortionism of thought to convince me of this. Now that I think about it, Pessoa DID give me a sense like that years ago when I read a few of his books, and I couldn’t articulate it. You never hear about those Portuguese, who knows what’s going on over there?

This is a simple yet profound truth

After all, isn’t the choice of the poem as the linguistic vection of thought already an intrinsically anti-Platonic one?

Poets do non-philosophy better than Laruelle! For as knowledgeable as some Platonists are they’re so lost in the labyrinth of their tradition that one almost gets the impression they’re more ignorant than anyone. And then of course I concede ignorance without being aware that it’s Socratic to do so.

Even the claim alone that Pessoa is more futural than any philosophy gets the gears turning, so that’s one value of interdisciplinarity. Whether Badiou proves it is another story.

He says his poetry addresses

neither the direct seeing in the light nor the opacity of a windowpane. The poem is there to create this “neither-nor” and to suggest that at its core there lies yet something else

When we talk about poetry what is there to “prove” really? That’s reducing it to math. The experience speaks for itself- and Pessoa does from time to time give one the experience Badiou describes.

“I’m neither a Platonist nor a non-Platonist myself!” Don’t flatter yourself too much there.

Deleuzian disdain kept me away from Badiou for years – do you people even know what you’re talking about? In his texts Deleuze seems to continue stalking him beyond the grave, it’s funny though.

Good point to “remember”

Against Plato, Pessoa seems to tell us that writing is not a forever imperfect and obscure reminiscence of an ideal elsewhere.

Something similar with amor fati. Things are perfect in their existence. That is, in their isness they are perfect. There’s something perfect about even a “simple thought” sheerly by the fact that it exists. Any thought is real. Any thought is its own “form”.

Ah so you thought I’d put the onus on the artsy types to learn math, and not force myself out of my own box? Nah.

Good luck finding many who refine themselves cross-disciplinarily in the leveled west of the future. Grug no think! Hence why we need a prog studies discipline.

Anyway, I want to go back to something

neither the direct seeing in the light nor the opacity of a windowpane

Is this a more direct seeing of the light?

I can’t help myself, I’m reminded here of that Osman Bey essay, except substitute “flower” for “light”

the Arab has platonic and spiritual respect for the beauties of the world, the Jew sees only its benefits. One may stop for a moment to admire a flower or other beautiful object, but the question immediately arises: How much can I get for it?

The Grug-Merchant-Thot world of darkness. They all live in their own realm of hell, a type of doomed reincarnation of an animal. “I thought you said everything is perfect the way it is!” You can have a dialectic between Plato and Pessoa. Badiou for one calls him a Platonist, so this Pessoa chapter must be an intermission, a thought-experiment. Of course in our time we’re forced to not be Platonists in the sense here, and even thought-experiments aren’t allowed. If you want to hop across disciplines that does mean that philosophy has ITS say, doesn’t it? “Why do you always have to return to yourself so quickly, why can’t you spend more time lingering on other disciplines?” I’m tryin’.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: