"It is not an existing, God-given space, the Cartesian space of numerical division, but an unfolding space, defined, as time is, by the arc of movement and thus a space open to becoming, by which I mean becoming other than it self, other than what it has been[.]" (p. 118)
First, allow me to take apart the above sentence into the (anti-)comparison that it is:
1) God-given; Cartesian; numerical division
2) unfolding; defined by time; arc of movement; open to becoming
Grosz here makes the comparison of a past order and a new order. She establishes the past order as something definite and discrete, and the association of godliness and mathematics begins the comparison with "us and them". Where the "us" is the new and "them" is the past. However, the paradox is in her association of time with the descriptives of "unfolding" and non-linear movement, which then establishes time as a non-discrete phenomenon. Hence the implication is made that what is new and what is past are not moments that precede one another, but they are moments that cannot be readily conceived without an abstract notion of what is not linear and what is potentially constantly self-referential.
Memory is virtual. Memory is orchestrated by instances of stimulation. The validity of memory is but applicable to that specific instance the remembered (or noted) moment in time. And similar to the act of taking notes, what memory chooses to re-establish is an act of selective (re-)presentation. The validity of what is remembered is but what we have imagined to be reality.
It is quite scary to realize that no memory is truthful. Although memory can very much be an unconscious process, it is nevertheless scary to know the selectivity of our process of remembering is but an act of falsification (or even customization).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment