“Nothing happened … but everything’s different …”

In the transformations from one metaphysical period, or epoch, to another, precisely the inverse of the above statement occurred.  Everything changed, yet nothing was really different.  In keeping with metaphysics, the changes were mathematical, topological. How does it stand with the twisting out of metaphysics?  How could that change be itself seen?

“Metamorphosis is a realized metaphor, confusing relation and being. The regime of the favour – granting – is a regime of real substitution. Giving is no longer symbolic economy. The metamorphosis of being and beings real-izes imagination.”

“Technology itself forces us to think the word ‘essence’ in a different way.”

As techne, technology is inherently the realization of the imaginary, and its actualization as work, as a work, just as art and craft is also the realization and actualization of the imaginary as a work. But we maintain the distinction without seeing the crossing, the line, the boundary itself and its porosity, its own metabolic essence. We fail to experience essence as metabolic. Metaphysics, in each epoch, thinks essence as the immutable, whether as idea, substance, matter, mathematical projection; yet the change from one epoch to another is always precisely a change in essence. Thus essence is not immutable, but the locus or place of change itself. Essence is essentially metabolic. That locus is in every thing, and as such in man himself. It is the boundary between the imaginary and the actual, which is equivalent to saying the boundary between the ontological and the ontic; it is ontological difference as such. There are imaginary reals and actual reals, and the real passes from one to the other constantly, not only changing in itself, but modifying the boundary of change itself. Change itself is constantly changed.

That which cannot be made visible must, in a phantasmic but incontrovertible way, be made visible. The technology that displays the other face of Gestell must not cross the line but abide with it, overtly, and in this abiding make the crossing itself phantasmically, fantastically, visible. It must do so in a manner such that simply, incontrovertibly, it is insistently real, yet both imaginary and actual and neither merely actual nor merely imaginary; it must be overtly experienced as both and neither, instead as event.

As such its form must be so morphable that even querying it changes it. Only in that manner can it remain in and abide by the crossing, since it cannot be fully imaged or figured. Its form must be so tentative, fragile that even the smallest look refigures and re-forms it. We experience it only as form constantly fleeting, yet the experience must be obvious and indisputable. It can neither be fully seen, not even in flashes, nor fully imagined. It remains on the line, abides in and by the crossing from ontological imaginary to ontic, factical actuality, while remaining indisputably real.  It must be incomprehensibly obvious.

The line, the boundary, is the precondition of both relation and being, it must remain metamorphic in an overt way, so that metamorphosis is experienced not by its result but in itself – as constant metamorphosing. The metabolic must be experienced as metabolizing precisely where we are least expecting it – in the ultimate enframing of and by the technological.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s