Pokemon Bloody Platinum Gpsphone

Contra An interview about love (II of II)

DGD: Landscapes-Series Arctic 26 (clonografía), 2009

*
The Otherness capitalized
Interview with Daniel González Dueñas
(Second of two parts)
* Ana Alonzo

* *

- The climax of the book contains an image that suggests the second birth spoken of alchemy, only here the accent is not individual but a couple. Does this have to do with what you call Otherness capitalized?

* "Yes, and the archetypal reference is of course the great founding myth: that of the androgyne. However, the perfect metaphorical representation is neither more nor less than the myth of Oedipus. We all remember the very famous riddle which the Sphinx to Oedipus: "What creature that moves on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon and three at dusk?". Oedipus responds, "The Man", and thus defeat the Sphinx. What is not remembered is that, according to several ancient versions, the Sphinx, after that response, requires one second riddle Oedipus even harder: "They are two sisters, one of which gives rise to another and, in time is generated by the first. " After Oedipus reflects and responds: "The day and night." Been successful and thus ultimately precipitated the self-destruction of the Sphinx. The essence of this magnificent second riddle of the Sphinx is the astonishing idea that one begets the other lovers, and in turn is sired by the first.

*

- is curious given the day a female, and is called "sister" of the night.

*

-Lo

memorable this English version of the second puzzle is that the usual plot heterosexism wisely according to which only the opposite gender function as real poles. In the myth (and here the Oedipus and the Sphinx communicates with the Androgyne) there is no general opposition: there are sisters ("the day" and night), there are brothers (the day and "night") and there pairs (day and night), implying very healthy that the protagonists can be two women, two men, or a woman and a man, with equal weight for whatever archetypal case.

*

- One of the challenges in talking about this issue is to make intelligible the world of emotions, how you faced this risk when writing love Contra?

* "The only possible answer is that I did my each and every one of the testimonies collected the book are the voices, some heard" live voice ", others read, some lived. Sometimes two or more evidence became one, told by one voice, sometimes a single witness was divided into several, like several very disparate voices. These stories could only be rewritten as if he had lived. The only way to be faithful to the rapporteurs was through emotion. Although the book seems to prevail reflection, I think it may well be said to be a book eminently emotional.

*

- Tolstoy said that all happy families are alike, and which are not, are unhappy in their own way, that is, have a history. Would you think the same about love? Just have the unhappy love story?

*

"So it seems, and also this is the very definition of the West. Denis de Rougemont himself scoffed at this idea when he put the title to one of his books History a happy people. The word "happiness" is very rotten in the use and abuse that has been made of it, the power behind the West tells us that our duty is "to be happy ", yet we realize that happiness (as stated in the common place) has no history. Therefore, what the West imposed on us a duty not to be happy but "tender" for happiness as long as never reach it, because achieving it means not having a history, and this is more frightening than we can imagine: no more frightening to us that anonymity and oblivion.

*

- Happiness Is then an alibi?

*

"Thus it is used. On one side abide by our "duty to be happy" which is nothing to be consumed and supporters of bourgeois ideology and neo-liberal, which means using the word "happiness" as the theme of cannibalism and dehumanization. We are obedient and "tend" to happiness but simultaneously we sabotage any possibility of "being happy" because we have history (and we know that only have a history of conflict, destruction and pillage).

* Hermann Hesse admired philosopher unjustly forgotten, Christoph Schrempf, who has an ineffable phrase "damned if I dispense the duty of being happy, I could live in a fairly acceptable." If we do not like the word "happiness", so rotten that is, say serenity, joy or fullness , individually, and at the couple say agreement (which with a bit of etymology fiction means the synchronous beating of two hearts).

*

In Contra love is said to be an ideal couple, whose members were each the "half" of the other two form a kingdom without a trace, and in the world "communication "that from which there is no record simply does not exist. But there is no danger of that happening (the perfect meeting or consistent, one in which addresses the field of Otherness in capital letters) because for us, love is the greatest story, ie not only the continuing conflict but perennial and systematic devastation.

*

- The subtitle of your book is "Letters to disarm the erotic model of the West, and one of these models is consumerism that makes Hollywood erotic. Could you expand on what this model implies lovemaking?

*

-Much of the book is devoted to erotic media model (and the most powerful of them all, Hollywood) reported minute by minute. Erotic consumerism are not the gadgets or magazines or anything you buy or accept to become more "desirable" but the desire itself. We sell a single way of saying. We not desire (pun intended) but by fear. And it could go further in that line, the West does not love by love but by hatred.

*

- education always precedes a sentimental love story, and it becomes a mere example of these forms of love described in the book and we all know through songs, movies, novels .. . One of the most important to disarm the sentimental education model is in the section called "What people do ", where he claims that we often confuse love with those things that makes people love. How can we avoid this way to confuse life with social life?

*

"That chapter is devoted to that to me is one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century, it is Juan Matus, Carlos Castaneda's teacher. Don Juan shows us that we confuse the world with what people do, for us there is more to life than social life. He says: "What people do is of course very important, but only as a safeguard". And he explains with striking clarity: "An elderly man has not exhausted the world. Just what exhausted people do. But in his stupid confusion believes the world has no mysteries for him. What a price we pay for our securities dire! ".

* Now, open the perception is not only difficult but dangerous: it implies, says don Juan, a monumental shock . It would not be so serious and risky if our culture does not pit had cut all communications with the ancient wisdom: we would be prepared, we would know difference, we would live responsibly intense and inserted into the world and what people do, but not confined to that and ignorant of what lies beyond. On some level may well be said that this is so terrible experiences disrupting (which are "beyond", which brings us back to another ): love, sleep, play, poetry, and other boundaries, dementia.

*

- In every culture lovers go crazy, and they themselves say.

* And perhaps this is because they are accustomed to looking to understand how life and social life, even in the more magical and transcendent love lovers are equated with "what people do "and measured respect to that consensus. In his highest moments, love is a glimpse of life and the world beyond people do . In it is like poetry: when in truth deserves the name, love has no history, related or consequential, much less what is called "experience."

* When someone claims to "a loving experience" lies. In what is experienced is what people do. If suddenly that person was lucky enough to find the love consistent, which is beyond what people do, and also had great wisdom and courage must admit, would be that all this "experience" that prided absolutely no use at all. Because it would look at once like in the beginning of the world. And we could delete the word "like." All love is the first, and not in a social sense but Eden.

*

- Language is another skin Is her being played with the fans?

*

-only it were so, but in our current state of consciousness is exactly the opposite: we use language (and language uses us) to put a barrier against anything that shows us love, or wants to show, ie against monumental shock the opening moments of a reality deeper and more real.

*

- Among the literary genres, one that rescues with special emphasis on the book is the interior monologue . Would you say that this is the modern kind of love, because through it they become life stories?

* "You say well: more than a style or technique, the interior monologue is a genus (etymologically understood as generator). We all have an internal monologue that is active the all time, and that the infatuation is dislocated to unspeakable levels. Don Juan Matus says that interior monologue each of us holds the world as it appears at all, even so, lovers keep the love in the field of prose, that is, "what people do." The reason is, again, fear.

*

- The climax is encouraging if we realize that going against the love (social) is going against the fear, do you think that this is possible in the Western model?

*

"A big step in itself monumental, you become aware of this fear, realize exists, how it manifests, how is what we fear. It is deplorable that in the West, the same way that life is only social life, awareness is only the bad conscience (guilt, mostly). After Love and de Rougemont West can no longer ignore what we do not want to face. We know why the love that is more open form of significance to all, become prey. Due to a huge and ancient fear we love and killing, to kill him.

*

The book closes with the climax without hope of providing answers, but there is some form of hope: that consciousness is so different of bad conscience, to realize (what we do and why we do it) ceases to be a form of escape and revenge and become the urgent need to reinvent the experience of love with true courage, true generosity.

* *** *

Against Love (Letters to disarm the erotic model of the West) ,

Council for Culture and Arts of Nuevo León , Monterrey, 2010.

Orders: Erika Angel edelangel@conarte.org.mx ,

Lara Carmina contacto@conarte.org.mx ,

Conarte Monterrey Library libreria@conarte.org.mx

* *

Free Sean And Cody Vidos

Contra An interview about love (I of II)

DGD: Landscapes-Series Arctic 27 (clonografía), 2009

*

[With the first half of this interview so far unpublished celebrate the second anniversary of this blog. Thanks to friends for their support. (DGD)]

*

The Otherness capitalized

Interview with Daniel González Dueñas

(First of two parts)

* Ana Alonzo

*

*

- In your work, which crosses the genres of poetry, novels, fiction and essays, and has an emphasis on issues of film and literature, what led you to write about love?, " and why at this point in your life?

* "It's the big issue behind all issues, and the challenge could hardly be greater: it is a path that must be followed precisely in the land where no roads or even field. I do not know to what extent can we speak of times or moments: a book that is being written in a while and only now I felt I could risk the weather.

*

- One of the most interesting aspects of Contra love is that it gives a character to something plural first person ever enunciated and intimate way. The structure of the book's dialogue, how did, how would you explain this structure?

*

-divided the book into two parts, one that brings together diverse evidence or anecdotes, and some reflection, and began to talk. In A Lover's Discourse Fragments Barthes us that the discourse of love (if you can call speech) exists only in fragments that are never going to make a whole. The fragmentary is the only one who has any hope of catching him untouchable. Barthes reflects the love lyric of all time and realizes that all we live in every encounter significant whole (each event is unique and yet, plural).

* That meaning I like to think of this book like a novel, because it has a certain dramatic structure and even more, like a novel "first-person plural" (which could be stated as I live , while at present and past).

*

- One of the highlights of the book is its coherence and unity, mainly because although there are many quotations from authors such as Barthes, Bataille, Connolly, Porchia, Juarroz, etc. each event is the privileged place of lucidity. What criteria did you take to manage these appointments? This amounts to asking: what were your reasons for order the different aspects of love that you show?

*

-Barthes put together his fragmented in alphabetical order to illustrate that the fragments (which he calls figures) occur in the experience of the love due to chance, both inside and outside, in the case Against the love of there is a certain order, just not obvious and is rather taken for analog magic. This order is not rational, or follow another logic than the gut. The reflective part of the book and the stories or testimonies fed each other in a way that I just had to respect and support. I have only let these two parties talk to each other and both the third and crucial part of the book, which is an anthology of quotations. The three parts of the book is patchy and the reader can play to rebuild their own way, assembling mosaics might be called temporary or virtual, and that's the point: that the "fourth" part personal fragments are provided by the reader.

*

- The speakers are identified by letters of the alphabet, "M", "R" ...

* Yes, even the grammatical gender appears only when essential to understand a certain story, and with it is intended that reader in any orientation, gender or sex may be reflected in very specific situations without losing the notions of community and universality (and is also a way of escaping the innuendo that any story, however innocuous it may seem, the imprint of a whole erotics and sexology officers).

*

- Do you understand the fragments (not just the evidence but also the quotes), as does Barthes, or as the figures almost choreographic sense?

*

"It is certainly the safest way to understand them. If there is any sense in the armed parts of the book, is indeed dance. For example, had been collecting quotes about love and heartbreak from long ago, and the book itself seemed to indicate when to rely on these vital voices: the rhythm of writing opened up a kind of gap as an indication that this was the right place for an appointment. On many occasions I had the chance, by pure synchronicity, to meet with quotes that I had in my library and seemed to direct contributions, comments and annotations about the chapter I was writing at that time.

*

- early reflections anecdotes, and stories reflect; even in a sense quotes are testimonials, as well as reflections.

*

"The intention was that there were no fixed boundaries between the parties. For example, in a few cases there was really a reporter, a certain date (or a combination of two of them) I had to invent the story in which could be inserted as the pearl in its shell, something like add a little context where that quote could sit back and let their brightness hidden.

* Appointments are, of course, voice teachers invited to the dialogue. This collection continues to grow at random from the seemingly unconnected readings with the theme of love, I just happened now, rereading The Edge of water Agustin Yanez, Yanez ends suddenly "preparatory act" (or introduction) of this novel seems to break a line above, that has no background or specific training in the preceding paragraphs and, in its own right, if not already published the book, would appear next to certain statements of Bataille, Connolly or Jouhandeau (or even Don Juan de Castaneda). Figure says Yanez: 'Love is the strangest, the most extreme form of death, the most dangerous and feared dying way of life. "

*

Many hate to love it, for fear of her danger, but not why the book is called Against love. That is not demonstrating against the speaker's transcendent love Yáñez, something as serious and profound as life and death, but against this series of silly trifles and fundamentally utilitarian and destructive media call "love."

*

- In the book you mention that one of the characteristics of amorous discourse of modernity is talking about it in prose, "with the same words that appear in any other discourse, as if the love was a speech 'as any'. "

* "It's the sign of a voluntary impoverishment, we know that the discourse of love is not" any other "but force it to be, by way of revenge. East, however, is not susceptible to the erotic poetry but, and this because the lovers are metaphors can only speak of them metaphorically.

*

- In what sense lovers are metaphors?

*

"In simple terms, a metaphor is to give one thing by another, usually more unexpected, such as "Your eyes are like stars," where the eyes, which until then was a "whole" by pure like nothing else is revealed as part of something bigger. This is the first function of metaphor, open field of meaning: the eyes may be else, which means accepting that are somewhat larger than they appear to be (the first function of metaphor is to break it apparential .) The second function is as magical: the eyes not only understand, feel, or are best appreciated when compared to stars, but stars become in, and even more: the metaphor makes us recognize that the eyes were already stars forever, but we did not realize until the moment of discovery. (Conversely, for every metaphor works both ways: the stars are eyes.)

* When I fall, I fall for a metaphor, ie someone who takes me more than anything else I can not foresee (the intuit but I can not discern, and not only the need but I is indispensable, without knowing what it is) myself because I go out of my metaphor, or rather go out of my limits. The prose speaks of boundaries poetry speaks of the limitless. If we speak of love in prose, we remain chained the limits (all conventional and taxes). Only poetry could make me understand the desire to leave me, to enter the other , and even the desire of two out of "us" and enter ... What? That's the big question.

*

- often thought of love as the output of the "I" to enter the "you", but not out of "us."

* "I think that is the important step that is there, as a substantial part of love, and not take for very different reasons: perhaps forgotten, probably fear. Entry as other not end when the "I" addresses "you": this is just a first step in the exploration of otherness , followed by another step, portentous and dangerous and dreaded, it is out of " us "to get into something that could only be called Otherness capitalized.

* *** *

Against Love (Letters to disarm the erotic model of the West) ,
Council for Culture and Arts of Nuevo León, Monterrey, 2010.
Orders: Erika Angel edelangel@conarte.org.mx , Carmina
contacto@conarte.org.mx Lara, Monterrey Conarte
libreria@conarte.org.mx Library

* *** *

[ Read the second and final part .]
*

*

Free Beach Female Strippers

A fragment of Contra

DGD: Frontispiece 2 (clonografía), 2001

*

[ Against love brings together testimonies from very different voices. In most cases these accounts are not literal, and I've purged of references and local color of grammatical gender even when this was not strictly necessary. The testimony should be as naked as their players so that they may reflect any reader of either sex, gender and orientation. Usually these accounts are disseminated emphasis is placed on the tears and especially in squalor, a record commonly used as an accent "realistic" that (with) wins by forcefulness. In Contra love this record is absent, and this is because what the book aims is to stress to a minimum, often the accent is used to string the reader to a single level of reading, one possible interpretation, in Contra love accents reduce to a minimum consistent with the intention of keeping alive the knowledge that all testimony there are multiple levels and not only the level generally recognized as unique to this type of expressions. Something happens in the background of all these stories of love and hate, something independent of how or when or why or by whom they are related. In this Rougemont was right: in the West is one story beneath all the stories (in) love, and we are all actors of that single witness. And because we know only be protagonists but also and especially to be representing the ultimate meaning of such representation. The following is one of the testimonies included in Contra love. (DGD)]

*

"Flee from me"

*

Why M served as the verbatim my instructions? At one point, I wrote on a piece of paper where I stopped fevered knew M was going to find it: "Flee from me, do not come near me. Erase me love for you to be your own sleep forever. " (Yes, I used this dreadful word, erase, as if love were a waste, cargo, ballast, and I think ultimately it was.) YM obeyed with a punctuality that still surprises me. (We in everything else so rebellious, so unhappy, why abide by the highest orders of the docile of a love that feel?) Why the surprise, if that was what I was asking? I'm surprised because I lied, lied so abysmal in the most heartbreaking veracity effort ever undertaken. I was asking, of course, hell, I knew (what "something in me knew that) with perfect, terrifying clarity. M and I would have destroyed in love at a lightning speed and impeccable performance-that is not in doubt: the proof is that M was due, that was both noble and his answer more implacable vengeance, and no But in that maddening phrase I asked the sacrifice you and me, I was dying in his presence and M had to know, because otherwise I would have become extinct anyway and also a form infinitely worse, a torture more delayed, implosive in a deafening silence. (And what I have today but torture of silence, where I live but in hell?) But he also was asking random Russian roulette, the impossible combination: that M would prefer the hell of being by my side to the other hell that came with it .

*

I know that in love ("love ?) Always tries to make the decision less deadly, and I did with a value that surprises me (but it is the" value "of that kicks with a final violence before drowning), and M obeyed. I know it was the lowest blow, the greatest betrayal imaginable, but I also know that we are allowed to live ("live ?) Spent a week without hearing let M, spent a few months, spent ten years. M away from me, but I deleted the love. With my incomprehensible sentence ("supreme lucidity or cusp of unconsciousness?) Gave the weapons out of its silence (it required a response) and that output was silence. Celebrating ten years now "does not make itself heard." And there could be twenty or fifty, or none: and to write that note was the way I feel today, at the same time he said "run" and "stop run", "Do not come near me" and "look at me one last time about and being far away, when you read this note. " And the only thing was literally "erase me love", because M is not removed but I only hope I never had. It was "get rid me "but" help me get rid of you, now that I have yet to order forces. " (Also M lied and betrayed, but he was right: he learned to obey my instructions enough to meet the phrase "get rid of me," but not "help me get rid of you.") The Hell I went out at the last moment is contained entirely in the article "the", because what I really wanted, what I never wanted harder-era "erase me, love", "extíngueme in the supreme moment that M read this note."

*

Lied to a limit that no one has ever come, and maybe that's why I told the truth: M was his dream, but I had put in the hands of the lullaby. Not invite me to join his dream world and dreamer, but to keep you asleep that world, from the outside. With a low blow enjoined the awakening and now I have ten years of hazy dream. Even I have the comfort of knowing if indeed M awakened so enduring, or a week, a year and was reborn and returned to sleep. Most likely, the dream remains, as it was before I met this miracle pain that is M, it is likely that their silence does not respond but the most thorough and wide of the forgotten. I am no longer even in the memory of M, which will travel down the building beautiful dream worlds. Brutally banished me a world that never was mine and where I never was. Was another small hells chosen, created, dreamed and forgotten by M. Waive cost me my life and gave up nothing. Silence. A decade of silence that would last, as it lasted, from and for ever.

* *

The silence of love

*

"A week passed without the M were allowed to hear, spent a few months, spent ten years." The silence of the fool is terrible slap in the face as our sense of sanity, no less appalling is the silence of a child who refuses to tell us how you feel or what it affects, even the silence of the mystic is shocking because, although tell you what saw in his personal lighting, do so in the language of all, who does not tolerate what is only one. Still, without a doubt the most terrifying silence of the beloved is no question, that of one who, for various reasons, opt for the "courtesy" consisting of spare any response.

*

"For various reasons." There are always reasons, especially when no reason . Which is usually for comfort or even simple laziness: wanting to avoid the bitter swill of a direct confrontation which would have to say-that is, put into words the reasons for not only rejects the relationship but also open the possibility a procession (which is but an extension of the term of which would be manifested anyway). Silence can also be due to the sympathy (waiver to humiliate, to feed false hopes), anger (indignation of being the object of desire) or ignorance (do not know why and do not want to know). Sometimes silence covers all kinds of excuses ranging from the most ridiculous ("I have no time to have a relationship", "no chemistry between us") to the most esoteric ("first I have to commit me.") Sometimes it will be the answer to a simple rejection (visceral, intellectual). Ultimately, all that together and much more will be experienced by rejected time and again, into a nightmare without end.

*

"A week passed without the M were allowed to hear, spent a few months, spent ten years." Of course I had other relationships, and even accrue as a balm for the wound, but did nothing grow the silence was unbroken, the declared and uncompromising renunciation (I used up the subtle forms of M request a demonstration, I even for a moment, the worst strategy, insisting dragged ). The real-time, daily, constantly loses its meaning when compared to other times, the hypothetical and imaginary-that is, therefore, invincible. If M had agreed, the relationship probably would not have lasted more than a few months. It might have been a painful breakup, but not comparable to what was "never", because then we will always be in full realm of fiction, marked by what "could have been."

*

M's silence did nothing but get bigger and more monolithic every day. Now I see that although M did not think at the end of those ten years I lived on a planet called M comparable to Frank Herbert imagined a planet of sand dunes, a vast desert. Not only the space: M also grabbed me time. A "no" would have cured me (because in the end would have been a verbal response), but I can not escape his silence. Even now reappeared with a "I was wrong" with an "always yes" (the time bends all superb), and could not answer. As M never said, sentenced me to become non-manifest in the negative. The sum of my actions are in the red. I am a ghost out of time and space. I am an illegitimate son of love.

* *** *

Against Love (Letters to disarm the erotic model of the West) ,

Council for Culture and Arts of Nuevo León , Monterrey, 2010.

Orders: Erika Angel edelangel@conarte.org.mx ,

Lara Carmina contacto@conarte.org.mx ,

Conarte Monterrey Library libreria@conarte.org.mx

* *