Nils Röller: On Art, Sex and Mathematics II- Interest

Tao means at first “path“.

Reading about Tao, we learn that it is all about opposites and the energy that can create a balance between two poles, for example the energy that rises up from the earth and the energy that descends from the sky. From the study of opposites it is possible to infer something about the relationship between the sexes. Tao tells us that this relationship is dynamic rather than static: a taking in and letting out of the steam that arises when water is heated, by Qi. Tao also tells of the unity and diversity that emerge from one, two and three. A linear model derives from Tao the one, then from one the two, from two the three, and from the three all things.

Another model is binary. It derives from Tao a Yin and a Yang. One Yin gives rise to connections between Yin and Yang. And one Yang gives rise to connections between Yang and Yin. Of Yin and Yang it is said that one gives off energy and the other takes it in. The intake and expenditure of energy has to do with Tao. Yin and Yang are not simply male and female, but they can indeed change the discourse about what is male and female. The Qi that flows between them is invisible; it is not restricted to organs, blood vessels or body parts, but it does change attitudes toward bodies, biological gender and gender identity. Through Qi we can conceive of male and female as poles.

Polarity is one of Oken’s central concepts. He writes:

“Polarity can be seen as a single setting of +-: and when this setting is repeated, movement results, from setting many +- +- one after the other. The main poles thus repel one another, like what happens on a iron pole when it is magnetized.” (§ 80)

Similar here does not mean the same. Oken regards nature as the realization of ideas. The sum of all ideas is zero, nothingness, which is also what constitutes God: “In the ether everything is preformed, just as everything mathematical is preformed in zero, and everything that acts is preformed in God: but this is also why nothing individual is preformed therein; instead, it comes about only when the poles are fixed in substance. This is the true meaning of the original creation of the organic.” (§ 954)

(Translation by Jennifer Taylor)

To be continued

Literature

Chen (Joseph) Cheng-Yih: “Cultural Diversities: Complementarity in Opposites”. In: Zielinski, S. und Fürlus, E. (eds.): Variantology 3. Cologne: Walther König, 2008

Butler, Judith: Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter – Gender Studies [Routledge 1990]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1991

Jullien, François: Über das Fade – eine Eloge – Zu Denken und Ästhetik in China [Arles 1991]. Berlin: Merve, 1999

Needham, Joseph: Science and Civilisation in China Vol. IV (Physics and Physical Technology), Part 1 (Cambridge, 1962)

Oken, Lorenz: Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie. Zürich: Schulthess, 1843

Röller, Nils: “Thinking with Instruments: The Example of Kant`s Compass”. In: Zielinski, S. und Fürlus, E. (eds.): Variantology 3. Cologne: Walther König, 2008

2.

Latitude lays me horizontal.

Falling through me are the days that have stopped counting.

Lucky to be here at all.

Karmakar shows just himself or representations of himself.

Why are his images so disturbing? Is it even possible to say or write this?

Do we have any logical insight, which helps us to express this affection?

Yes and No.

Yes, because we are challenged to make something with this strange tongue of Karmakar. It looks like everybody`s tongue. May be at bit thicker, lustful or fleshy than other tongues, but it is a tongue which everybody is familiar with, at least. At least everybody or nearly everybody has a tongue. Everybody uses this tongue eating, speaking, kissing.

But not everybody uses his tongue to caress and licker himself. This is analogic to Descartes.

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)

To what kind of intuition are we invited by Karmakar?

What are we asked to do? In analogy to the Cartesian formular we are invited to perform something. Does Karmakar want us to use our tongue and to start licking, caressing, eating ourselves in the way we see on his images?

Descartes and Karmakar share something. Descartes presents himself as gentle, calm author who is aware of its own limits, his limits of reasoning and knowing truths. Descartes writes elegantly that he does not want to convince, but that he invites to intuit his argumentations. Descartes calls his text a fable, a fiction and a painting. Karmarkar shares this elegance. He paints himself, he writes about himself, and invites to look at his images. He does not say or show more or less, just himself or a representation of himself.

(more…)

(more…)

After all, it is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a little copper and glass, perhaps, that I take for gold and diamonds. I know how very liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves, and also how much the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favour.  Descartes: Discourse on Method.