TO: OURGANISATION
FROM: SECESSIONIST OUTERNATIONAL
DATE: 1ST MAY IN DECEMBER
Hello the err,
Threerrre’s a problem in aimswering your quests: coherence is burnished sick…
I/We/They are tempted back to mammyfestos filled with teste textual psychosis. The big boy balls of the prepubic intellefectuals are already too booted with cloacal-birthedwords, but we thank you for attesting to us something word-clad as ‘experience’ (= words are eezeh but breaths remembered and insufflated among I/We/They is a challenge).
Let us try to ex-communicate with some more ventriloquising:
“The drifting of sense and facticity relates to secession” in around that I/We/They feel a need to step away from the order-moats of discurse.Too much gobshite monadic corridoring can get you in a full nelson and some get quiet sat gulping and can’t improvise no more and forget the power of vatic speech. So for the SO there is encouraging music amongst us at all times: tonal disharmony, simple addition to rhythm, splicements, tempo characters; those minor adjustments to the lingvo that effect what I/We/They can conceive and xpress. So secession is mad about seceding from the dominant syntax-tact and know-pose: I/We/They want to Mean What We Say not Say What We Mean (Fac88). Some poetic-effect be necessary for this, some stravaiging in n away weigh from the second-sense anchor of ideology to open something up; peel peer inside of its unsaid.
“IsN:t ComMMunitYOUTsIdeinTeLLigibiliTY?”
The repressed in language is the unsaid, but also what’s forced upon us to say. There must not be a place for the repressed so it’s relegated to non-representability. We’re tricked on fear of reveal into believing the repressed has no effect but it’s a prevailingly subterranean process that needs a ventilated space (“sharing of the secret”). So, polysemy is the way we take heart, materialise the unconscious: it be slips, parataxis, jestering, misunderstanding, gang slang, fecund codifics, dyslexic stuttering, punnage, plumage, ectoplasmic citage, silage. All this in place of delegated silence… prying politeness… the seamless consensus-say of the formal rackets… and in place of the objecthood dons of analysis. So, the slippage of signs reveals the malleability of an ‘in-stone’ lingvo (alchemical secrets ignite their interlocutors). We uprise against the censorious schools and the “government of meaning” that plies ipse discourse & we self-institute as cellular stanzas (a group without instruments) to undermine that self-aggrandising public voice that on and on drone surrounds “a sunken acceptance with the vague reproach of the already spoken” (Charlie B). That’s homogenity kills it us. Shutdown of x-presso. Y’all stiff up in yr limbs.
Awful bile also lassoos our atlas.
Polysemy = ‘multiple speech’.
Collision of idea times from each accord to next
When we use normopath lingvo if’t’s not just fact-commerce, ego-fellatio and predatory coherence, then it be a case of most articulate being taken as leader… as ‘personification of the anonymous’. The quanta mass con. One indiv stands in for the collective. But for the co-operative constellation of SO – one of many such woven rugs – it’s the polysemy of singularities that effects a syncopated polyphony. Tight like a snare. So SO = emphatic instability, NOIT.
The system-ucs, that motor of secession, is a crucial component of ourganisation: it adds up to a collective drive or an achronological emoto-fold-thought that’s machinic; it be like the ‘third person’ (or in ‘our’ case, the eighth: 7 plus 1 = SO). This extra one, the materialised other of our togetherness (actually alloted a ‘swiveling chair’ role by Fourier) is presenced as a postspoken preamble, but also as a constant auto-suspicion. All objects of our own singularity. Any ourganisation creates these entities (hence our interest in ESP) and in so doing reveals why ourganisations can become occultish (hence the link to elitism?). This is were Goad comes from: it’s the ‘third person’, the hidden third, the surplus of energy-wealth, the institutional drive, turned against those us’s that made it up. So with Nitty Fred we’re always killing God to attain the new being: social powers returned unalienated to the collective that bore them. The plus-1 as this new being in our midst (our species meaning). Living culture, then; is it not this social creativity (singular polysemy), this energy-wealth making thousands of plus-1’s; our inarticulate prototypes articulating away anyway?
Charlie B sez “A sudden accord conceals/an unseen presence…”
As for exclusion; this was only oddly mourned, deemed dispositive, by the failed epigones of identity politics (those poor thems that try to reconvene the past, source it, put themselves at the Omphalos). These reduced selflets, powered by an essentialist vainglorious fuel, made halls of mirrors out of organisations, mass generalisations, made themselves representatives dependent defensive upon event power rather than split counter-forces of the eventless base. Their lingvo suffocated us under the silent wait of a table-topping arelational victimhood (‘equality of oppression’ was their relational glue but this made us dumberer to one another).
To be self-excluded, abandonded, is not simple passivity. Is it not to be realistic?
WE ALL LIVE EVICTED (sez Mike Series)
To cut costs we’ll be spat out labour evertyime (R.Owl Gem sez: “the sentence of death pronounced by the economy”).
To ever have full knowledge of ourselves is a misnomer (we are incomplete, insufficent, always missing, ORPHIC: ‘I is another’).
So, SO’s self-abandonment entails…
crisis of expression
crisis of knowledge
crisis of belonging
crisis of legitimation
At all times then, with these mutiple crises betwixt us, there’s no lasting power for the very instability of each cut through each necessitates the relational bond of an affinity group without which self-abandonment becomes self-shattering.But also.Time becomes the form of our unity, the pasage of time towards history becomes an experience that binds us. Synchronicity. Breaths are united by their told memories.
Memories place us in a diffuse expellation.
AN OuRGANISATION FOR THOSE THAT HAVE NO ORiGANISATION
So the SO is an attempt to ourgonasize on the basis of this shared exclusion from the confines of those gorycats that are the tools of separation, from those internal boundaries that reify our perception possibilities. X-O-DUS is as much psychical as physical. In this sense it is “invisible”, but it subsists and insists at a much more microscopic level (“a feeling for what’s not there”). Such indiscernibility, exiting the event (=spectacle), could be seen as “non-action” if it were not for our praxis of the ‘least-event’ (=exchange situation). The vibrational activity of breathly contact, tonal touching, gestures encouraging the least confident, the most inscrutably sensintelligent, are such that relation attains a binding, a ‘convivial solidarity’.Such ‘work’ benefits from the porous boundaries of the SO as an ourganisation (“the ones who participate in it are not certain they have part in it”), it is not ‘projected’ into public event status but, self-abandoned into small circles convening in gap spaces. It reappropriates relation as living-labour (Lloydie Slim: “try to live good in the neighbourhood. Humerceh”)
E V A C U A T E T H E E V E N T : X – I T F R O M P R O J E C T
R E C O N V E N E E L S E W H E R E : S M A L L C I R C L E S
“Breath… as about a communication beyond verbal language.” Breath is music. The speaker heaves. We listened to Nicole Brossard not list recently: “The body interests me in its circulation of energies and the way it provides, through our senses, for a network of associations out of which we create our mental environment, out of which we imagine far beyond what we see, hear, feel or taste. It is through this network of associations that we claim new sensations…” These new sensations are a way of, having listened to the body and felt the undualtions of its emotive forces (energy as bios as libido), that we can speak of ‘building drives’. ‘Breath’ becomes a metaphor for the semiotic of the impulses that the Polish Count and Nitty speak of: a semiotic each has access to at all times, a honing and assemblage of instincts into drives – an affective knowledge, a self-consciousness that, overcoming the mind/matter split, takes us beyond the human rights towards the species being and the dutiless vow of frankness that can’t be protocolized: let’s be serious now – procedures aim to police and maintain the separation between thought and feeling, they are censorious reducers of passion, they are psychotic inducements that produce internal CIDs and remove relational reponsibilites (ouragonisation as collection of pathologies). If there’s no trust then there’s procedures, tutelary guarantees, instead. And of course, all procedures need their interpretors and that’s were “parity amongst members” is destroyed: priests, project-leaders, idealogues.. all power-crazed hopalongs who, alienated already, let refied procedures do the work. With trust there’s neither transparency nor opaqueness but abreaction. As Coop said: “What a responsibility it is to make sure no one takes away our responsibility”.
To end: We are not a “people”, the people are missing. But our strength comes from our dispossession. Everything is now reappropriatable now. We are the circular breathing of energy wealth. Our covert disc.:. energy is catalysed by a change of state, dependent upon place and context. Energy wealth is what plugs into the drive of the ourganisation.
(no more?)
(we’ve time to go)