Backward Paraliterature Glossary V!

Terms Glossary Paraliterature Glossary gives discussions not of thing-ness "Korperding",but questions of non-thingified Being "Geistding"! "Paraliterature"?

 "Paraliterature"?As maybe got attentioned and disclosed by Jodey Castricano,that in the last thirty years,cryptominesis as a writing practice of Jacques Derrida's later works,which appearing with increasing frequency accompanying the living-dead,the revenant,the phantom and the crypt,along with their effects of haunting and mourning,such a practice of encryption in Derrida's writing bears traces of being "ghost-written",and such a cryptomimesis functions in terms of textual mime to produce,in part refer to as "Paraliterature",a hybrid of literature and criticism,art and science,in other names,cryptography or phantomime,since these terms draw attention to the uncanny dimensions of a writing practice that takes place as a ghost of crypt-effect of haunting and mourning.

 Contents:  icon upgradingin editing!vidietz |Viktor Shklovsky |verbarium |visor effect |visibility-specter/phantom or ghost |visibility nocturnal |visible referent |vitrifying structure |vitre | | | | |

 vidietz:vidietz,as one of the allosemes of the Wolf Man,it got used by the Wolf Man to imago "a witness,alluding to the glimpse of the primal scene".

 Viktor Shklovsky:Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky (or Shklovskii; Russian: Виктор Борисович Шкловский; Saint Petersburg, 24 January [O.S. 12 January] 1893; Moscow, 6 December 1984) was a Russian and Soviet critic, writer, and pamphleteer.Shklovsky is perhaps best known for developing the concept of otstranenie or defamiliarization (also translated as "estrangement") in literature. He explained the concept in the important essay "Art as Technique" (also translated as "Art as Device") which comprised the first chapter of his seminal Theory of Prose, first published in 1925:"The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important." (Shklovsky, "Art as Technique", 12).In other words, art presents things in a new, unfamiliar light by way of formal manipulation. This is what is artful about art.Shklovsky's work pushes Russian Formalism towards understanding literary activity as integral parts of social practice, an idea that becomes important in the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and Russian and Prague School scholars of semiotics.He died in Moscow in 1984.1

 verbarium:verbarium got attentioned by Abraham,completely in harmony with the Lacanian principle that desire is a metonymy,Abraham successfully pursues the "primal" line in the series of homonyms,displacements and metonymies at the end of which he locates the three pillars of the Wolf Man's language:"vidietz":witness;"goulfik":zipper;and "tieret":to rub.These words encrypted three positions that are pictured in the primal scene of the Wolf Man:the position of the sister,that of the father committing the incestuous act,and that of the witness,the little Sergei himself.It is thus this threefold identification incorporated in a series of words that haunted the Wolf Man's speech,and it was the primarily topographical analys Freud and his followers performed that obscured the solution,deferring it further and further.Abraham's turn towards language and defining the crypt not in topographical but in linguistic terms let him decode the secret(ed) "verbarium" and thus to the termination of the analysis.

 visor effect:visor effect,Derrida ever mentioned this visor effect when discuss repetition and apparation, he noted,"The Thing is still invisible,it is nothing visible"(quoted dialogue between Marcellus and Barnardo: "Marcellus:What,ha's this thing appear'd againe tonight?Barnardo: I haue seene nothing"),and comment on this:"Nor does one see in flesh and blood this Thing that is not a thing,this thing that is invisible between its apparitions,when it reappears.This thing meanwhile looks at us and sees us not see it even when it is there.A spectral asymmetry interrupts here all specularity.It de-synchronizes,it recalls us to anachrony.We will call this the visor effect: we do not see who looks at us.Even though in his ghost the King looks like himself("As thou art to thy selfe," says Horatio),that does not prevent him from looking without being seen: his apparition makes him appear still invisible beneath his armor("Such was the very Armour he had on...")".and He lay some emphasis on this:"We will probably not speak of this visor effect any more, at least not by that name,but it will be presupposed by everything we advance on the subject of the specter in general,in Marx and elsewhere.As will be spelled out later on the basis of The German Ideology and the argument with Stirner,what distinguishes the specter or the revenant from the spirit,including the spirit in the sense of the ghost in general,is doubtless a supernatural and paradoxical phenomenality,the furtive and ungraspable visibility of the invisible....."2,Dr.Kas Saghafi proposed this asymmetrical relation in which we are unable to see what regards us 'the visor effect.',..."what specifically distinguishes this ghost or specter,Derrida notes,is its look or gaze(regard).This 'someone other[quelqu'un d'autre]---which,Derrida emphasizes,we must resist as determining as 'self,person,consciousness,spirit,and so forth' is marked by its regard(SM 27/7)'"3
 About the visor effect,or the visor,Nicolas Royle proposed that Derrida's comment at three address,(1) is in Spectres of Marx and elsewhere,Derrida defines this in terms of the formulation that "we do not see who looks at us" and asserts that "it will be presupposed by everything we advance on the subject of the spectre in general,in Marx and elsewhere"(p7),and (2)the Royle quoted another title "The Time Is Out of Joint",and suggested that "the visor is integral to what Derrida offers,in passing,as a definition of deconstruction:'Deconstruction is just visiting---and from the visitation one passes quickly to the visor,to the visor and haunting effect in Hamlet---return to Hamlet's father.'"; the (3) is In Archive Fever "In Archive Fever the visor effect is attached to Derrida's definition of the archive:the archive,he says, 'is spectral a priori: neither present nor absent 'in the flesh',neither visible nor invisible,a trace always referrring to another whose eyes can never be met,no more than those of Hamlet's father,thanks to the possibility of a visor.'(p.84)",Royle suggested Derrida observed that "The phantom thus makes the law---even,and more than ever,when one contests him.Like the father of Hamlet behind his visor,and by virtue of a visor effect,the spectre sees without being seen."(p.61).Royle suggested Derrida toils at the visor-effect,and suggested a question of relating the visor-effect with certain mole?,"Derrida toils at the visor-effect,as if preferring not to countenance this 'countenance more in sorrow than in anger.Why does he put so much emphasis on something that runs counter to the words that actually appear in Shakespear's text?Is it possible(such would be the feeling I have,and one of the possibilities I am interested in excavating here) that his concern with the visor-effect is traced,spectralized, 'supervised' by a certain mole?Isn't that above all what the figure of the mole evokes,at least in the West,namely an uncanniness around the question of seeing,an uncertainty about whether the mole sees or not,or,if it sees,how it does?Might this in turn throw another light or another sense on the logic according to which Hamlet addresses the figure with the visor-effect as a mole?'"6

 visibility-specter/phantom or ghost:see Kas,the term "specter" and "phantom or ghost(fantôme),in contrast to revenant,the ghost that returns,are etymologically related to visibility and the visible spectacle.Spectrality and 'ghostliness'(fantomalité) share 'the becoming almost visible of that which is visible only insofar as it is not visible in flesh and blood'.Exceeding the oppositions between the sensuous and the nonsensuous,'at the same time visible and invisible,phenomenal and non-phenomenal:a trace that marks in advance the present by its absence'(E 131;emphasis added),the return of a specter is 'the frequency of a certain visibility' that is not tangible(SM 165/100-101)."4here Kas proposed and discussed a complex relation between visibility and specter/phantom or ghost, and their difference than revenant.see also in the flesh,spectrogenic process,spectre.

 visibility nocturnal:about "see" on the screen with spectral apparitions,see nocturnal visibility.

 visible referent:see photographic referent.

 vitrifying structure:Kas confirmed with Derrida's notes about vitrifying structure about relationships with the other,and proposed "Since the relationship with the other is never direct or immediate,we can say that all relationships take place as if they were through glass.In the relation with the other,the other is always separated by a very thin yet impassable glass partition("une vitre infranchissable")(Par 2007)".Derrida notes "the vitrifying structure [la structure vitrifiance] of writing and desire in L'arret de mort in the 'journal de bord' accompanying the essay 'Survivre'(Par 183/139) as well as addressing the phenomenon of the vitre and the vitre brisee,citing a number of instances from Blanchot's recits involving a vitre(Par 183-86/139-142).In the absence of any direct contact,the other is always just out of reach,nearly untouchable.However,even though there is always a separation from the other,a relationship is still maintained;contact through the vitre brings togethor and separates at the same time."5

 vitre:see vitrifying structure.


 1: see wikipedia,under title "Viktor Shklovsky".
 2: see Specters of Marx,1.injunctions of marx.p.6~7.
 3: see Apparitions-of Derrida's Other.Kas Saghafi,Fordham University Press.2010.ISBN.978-0-8232-3162-1.under title "ça' me regarde:Regarding Responsibility in Derrida II",discuss Hamlet's Ghost.
 4: see ibid.under title "The Ghost of Jacques Derrida".A Spectral Body".page notes 23.Kas proposed the trace or origin of specter and phantome,it noted at page 178.23:"Specter" is derived from F.spectre(sixteenth century) or L.spectrum,f.specere,to look,see,and "phantom or ghost[fantôme]" from ME fantosme,fantome,f.OF fantosme(twelfth century) f.Lf.Gk.phantasma from phantazo,make visible f.phaino,show;which is related to phainesthai,appearance or appearing before the eyes,and to the brilliance of the day and to phenomenality. 24.This is my rendering of "C'est que devient alors quasiment visible ce qui n'est visible que pour autant qu'on ne le voit pas en chair et en os."
 5: see ibid.,under title "Part III.Approaches.By the Board.Derrida Approaching Blanchot.The Close-Distant[Proche-Lointain] Relationship",page 111-112.
 6: see The Uncanny.Nicholas Royle,Manchester University Press,ISBN 9780719055614 paperback.under title "18.Mole",Page 241~255.

 prev arrow A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z next arrow

♣ last edit date:8st,Dec.2010.