Seen from a broader perspective blogging unifies. Now millions of persons use the same format. So the expressions of millions of persons are subjected by a digital format, so millions of expressions are homogenized.
From a closer perspective this argument does not hold. (more…)
Jabès creates a field of tension between the words “page”, “word”, “white”, “writing”, “sand”. What would be an aquivalent for these words in the domain of computing? May we translate
“page” with task?
„word“ with number?
„white“ with equal?
„writing“ with counting?
„sand“ with nature?
Every number is something special. Each integer has its own character. So numbers can be thought as persons. So the computer, which is called a number-cruncher can be thought as a person-cruncher. The cruncher processes data, for example news. Every news can be represented as a number, which can be crunched. So the world of news can be crunched, so the world can be crunched.
The computer seems to be powerful, powerful like the book or powerful like god. Is the computer powerful like a word? A word like the word „god” is powerful. It is an expression of god. Without words god would not exist.
Can we ask a number? We can ask a computer to calculate numbers. The calculation gives an answer to a question. Numbers by themselves do not give answers. But we can understand numbers as questions, as question marks, as marks that embody questions. The human mind asks. He invents signs such as god and numbers in order to give his questions a body, an appearance. Without questions the computer could not give any answer. But we can understand the computer as something, that moves marks, as something that moves expressions of questions. So we may become able to subvert the power of computing machines. We may enable ourselves to understand numbers as powerful questions.
“The rapports, that the answer has with the question, are in the first line rapports of power and therefore political”. (Jabès)
French “trou” means hole, prison in a ship, nest, backwater, gap. Is the computer something like this? Is a computer a prison in a ship, in spaceship earth?
Is the computer something closed, something that does not stand in communication with others?
The door, the roof, the wall were a gap. We have only this gap in order to err, to love, to die. (Jabès)
Given the fact, that everybody uses numbers and computers. Given the fact, that everybody uses numbers and computers to express himself. How it is then possible to speak the language of the other?
To speak the language of the other, but in an interrogative manner. (Jabès)
How is a translation of this words into the context of computing thinkable?
Is there any hint, that numbers and computers change, when they are used by different persons? Is there any difference between my numbers and the numbers of the other? Between my computer and the computer of the other? His computer may be faster or slower than mine.
To be subverse in this condition implies to respect the difference of speed and performance and organisation of the computer of the other.
Arvanda is one of the many names for Anna Livia Plurabelle. Anna Livia is one character and Anna Livia is more than one character. She is Arvanda, Eve, Isis, Iseult. She is the great mother, and the great caring character in Joyce Finnegans Wake. She takes care of the water. She is a symbol for multiple chances of using one liter of water and saving more water.
She would please Peter Brabeck.* Maybe Arvanda – Anna Livia Plurabelle becomes a goddess of water saving.
But do we want this?
“I am like a deaf mute saving up for a tone film apparatus. To be really wortkarg one must know every word”.
This quote from Beckett is relevant in the context of water saving.*
In order to reduce our daily consumption of water, we have to train our imagination. So we may transform Becketts words:
To reduce really the daily consumption of water one must know every possible way to use one liter.
The ground of water is covered with stars. When we use per day 25 liters water,* we use a treasure of stars according to Jabès. I understand this in a subversive way.
A traditional reading would argue: So, you simply adopt to a necessity and you use poetical thoughts in order to modify your imagination. So you simply accept a political and economic directive (to use not more than 25 liters per day). You accept this and you calibrate your mind by means of poetical thinking. But a subversive poetology is different.
There water is a flux and reflux of trouble. On the ground of trouble stars can be found.
* See: Interview with Peter Brabeck – CEO Nestlé: “Es gibt kein Menschenrecht auf einen Swimmingpool” – Das Magazin 17 – 2007
25 liters shall we use per day, not more.*
How can we imagine this. An idea of Jabès is helpful.
Jabès is a poetical thinker of inbetweeness. He reflects the blanks between to letters in a text. Out of this blanks he creates ideas of infinity and of limitation. Of course the restricted use of 25 liters will change our feelings and thoughts about limitation and freedom.
It will change our body and mind. It gives body and mind another rhythm. In this aspect the restriction equals the book. Jabès writes: Body and mind are subjected by the rhythm of the book. He adds: The field of subversion is free.
We will come back to this.
