Where Thought Belongs.
The act of writing anything begins with some amount of trouble, the Self interacting with the mind in producing the written word does not behave as an instrument of continuous linear production. Before the writer even sits down to write the thing before them has produced itself in fragments between the mind and the Self as dialogue, between the mind and self and the world. And as they continue to write this dialogue between a multitude of parts continues, the writer gets up after forty minutes and in the background the production of this dialogue goes on. If one was to attempt to write out their thoughts as they happened the product would be jagged and jutting out (hitting each interconnected piece) and involve revisement that in the revisement's dialogue with the whole writing produces an entire, *the writer at this point stops to find information wy have at the tip of his tongue* pando aspen forest with roots connecting with itself and interlinking and the change offered by the writer's, no!, the thinker's rest affecting in some way the whole of the structure. The difficulty of thought in this way is that one cannot sketch the entirety of a forest in a single image, any thought does not produce itself as an entire subject on the page. The self cannot even understand this forest because it is an interlinkiage between the self and the mind that neither fully has access to. In this way no one is fully capable to grasp a thinker's writing, the writer produces a piece and uses words they are not fully aware in what way they mean, the place of the word within the structure of a thinker's thought remains in some part unknown to them. This is the way I use res nullius, the unclaimed thing, no one's (nullius) thing (res), there is within my mind an entire structure dwelling that is host to these concepts and words that I use that I unwittingly grasp and use but I could never fully draw out their entire root structure, words like res nullius, The INSIDE, Nostalgiculture, that-which-is, at presence, lust for death, so on and so on. The genealogy of each would be difficult to trace at best and impossible at best, at worse, at best actually. [words] Informed by naive youth of wishing to appear smarter than I was, reading a bit of Nick Land, and finally moving onto reading Paul Virilio and being informed by his habit of creation of terms to an endless amount. The reflection on my own habits might seem in many ways tasteless, writers of the kind of thought I attempt to do are not suppose to write secondary material on themselves, appearing mostly as a narcissism and not acting humbly. But I do it for the reason that I am not taking my own writing and thought into focus, I am rather taking the act of thought itself into focus and how it develops within a single "thinker". A thinker in many ways when taking themselves at a distance view believes that perhaps anyone could do this thing they are doing, the kind of thought they do is a thing of systemic logic and inquire and their object of study taken from the greater res nullius is a pure study, they do not write autobiographically. A study conducted in this way is—in their own consideration—a pure study of a pure object. Once again here my usage of "pure" is one that is not drawn consciously from the Self, my own Self, but drawn from the dwelling structure within my mind. When a thinker writes about the Self they speak of many times of a general self, not a reflective self. To say "self" in a piece is not to say "my own self dwelling upon its own self" but rather "a self that is general, I dwell upon the self as a concept, as a history, as a linguistic piece". Now I could be quite wrong in this view, I have yet to read things such as Being and Nothing, Being and Time, Being and so on and so on. The I in writing of thought is a scholarly I, it is many times used as like the we in "We must, therefore, recount the birth and early days of this enigmatic 'leniency'." (Foucault, Discipline And Punishment, Page 75, May 1995 edition) in that it does not refer to the kind of I used in "im sad and want to be held by you" which I said to my girlfriend.
In the process of writing this piece the I that I use is the I towards the audience and not the internal I used when recounting the order of the day (I jerked off [task, pleasure, obligation in a way] after I woke up [event] and had food [action]) that exists within the dialogue between Self and mind and cannot ever be truly written for it disappears quickly. The I of the writing piece is also quite different than an I used in the off hand reaction of "I am doing alright, how about you?" or the historical I used in "I am tetra" that refers to an imagined continuous and consistent self that has a history in the way an event [this word event comes from the dwelling structure] that 1816 processes (not as 1816 as a linguistic object that is talked about but rather an event that contains a further set of historical events and to which documents and people belong to). The written I then has a permanence to it that other Is do not have and now I think about it the written I shares many traits with the historical I. It is imagined and presents itself as an authoritative subject that ranks above the off hand reaction I which is not considered to be part of the self in an actuality. At points the Self lacks a reflective self or any sense of I, when I [the historical tetra] absentmindedly grab oat milk from the fridge there is in the moments of that event pure action in which picnolepsy ([to borrow from] Virilio) is created. This absentmindedness is different from being at presence which also alleviates the I but still has a Self, a Self without an I however. To be at presence is to break past the that-which-is and contemplate the res nullius and in this way it is, if one so wishes to consider it {as such}, the opposite of picnolepsy. Now you the reader must be tired, if it is your first reading of this piece, of not knowing what I mean by res nullius.
I cannot trace the birth of res nullius and I am sure that some other figure has already produced a considerable amount of writing about it under a different name. I know however I sketched its outline in considering architecture, or so I think I know, memory is ever a faulty technology. It could be considered to be the world, (and concepts and being and nothing and so forth and so on) but I feel that this understanding of it is lacking to say the least, that-which-is also contains these things {too} but it contains them merely as concepts (concepts of concepts, what a silly thought). The that-which-is contains words and signs and sigils and symbols which create an interface ({i wish to say this is not a technological interface as I talked about in Nostalgiculture And The Gulf War, which could be considered as technological and media, but of course the that-which-is interface and the technological interface share some linkage}) that is interacted with and is what we [audience, historical self, humanity in general sense] in many ways experience as the usual object of existence and experience. I don't want you [audience, an imagined individual reading this, one of my friends] to be lead to believe that the that-which-is that I speak of is a fall from grace or the darkness *opens twitter to see what the full phrasing is in case i misremembered it* of this time {in which} that the goal of philosophy is to move to a point back in the past where that-which-is did not exist and to becoke {become} a brotherhood of man who gets to dwell in res nullius and thus be free from the fall. The that-which-is seems to be a thing which we [humanity but also referring to me in a general historical sense] benefit from in some amount, we conduct most of our everyday life within the world of that-which-is, and as <all things that be> {within} capitalism, Empire, ect, ect, whatever you wish to <stick it all on shapes> and informs the that-which-is, limiting the act of thinking or and perceiving in beneficial ways to capitalism or again, whatever you claim it all on. That is all to say that the that-which-is is a constructed item, an constructed item that is informed by many things. Pressing on it. Shaping it. Fucking it. Impregnating it.
In all the above I still do not provide you with what you [imagined subject of a speechless dialogue] want to know. I seem to you to not want or perhaps unable to say what res nullius fully entails. In the simple way of stating it I can only say "The res nullius is what people write about in a part of it but they never write about the entirety of the thing. That is to say, philosophy, science, art, ect takes and claims part of the res nullius as its subject of study but in its writing and thought each field then grasps at threads that flow from its object of study and connects with the rest of the res nullius" as the short way of saying it. Surely you [I intend here to influence your reaction, to bring out an underlying part of your present] must be a bit annoyed at me here, "She did not answer anything!" you might yell out. I could also say "It is the The Thing, you know, The Thing, agraphum (a google search gives its meaning as "things, unwritten" which I do not trust, a latin word that is not latin and merely a digital ghost, but I steal it now to mean "the unwritten things")" but this is also unlikely to please you. This then is the great trouble with thought, much of it remains unknown, res nullius as of now remains within the dwelling structure of my mind. I can say "The feeling of the wind passing through your hair as you bike up a small incline, as you fly, as you pass and fly, in that moment one experiences the res nullius" but this does not provide what it is. Now it is perhaps a butchered and defiled vulgar misinterpretation of Heideggerism but Heidegger was German so I do not offer anything of true respect towards him, tho I will admit I have read about a quarter of The Basic Writings Of Heidegger and for a part of it I consumed it while high (an overall terrible experience). I do not discount the possibility of the influence of his work then but in my way it is not the way that I am influenced by Virilio, it is instead a different influenced via like that influence a {passing train has upon} an artist. <//> This essay however overall, as disjointed and fragmented and poorly constructed as it may be, is not meant to be an analysis of my own work and thought but rather how a writer constructs and produces their own thought, and as such it [the essay] must use its author's thought as an example for it is what she [the author, tetra] is most familiar with in terms of thinking. The thinker oftentimes accidentally produces (or maybe on purpose) even if they are not a philosopher what could be considered by some to be a kind of philosophical product. What is considered philosophy is oftentimes a matter of respected thought, or "philosophy is written thought that has been referred to as philosophy {enough times} that it is accepted as such". What is the difference between </4/10/2021/> Discipline and Punish and The City In History? What makes one philosophy and one a history? </4/12/2022/> In both a thinker uses a history to provide an analysis of a subject(s) and to suggest certain things, is there in Mumford and Foucault an underlying different structure of thinking that makes one philosophy and one history? Or is it that the kind of thought used in construction is of the same kind but tuned to different elements of the res nullius (again I hope there are those who have already written about this thing I speak of) and follow a general system of rules? What makes thinking historically and thinking philosophically so different {if at} at all? A philosopher and a historian cannot keep their entire end product held at a single point within the thoughts of their Self, one forgets what the fourth sentence of the first paragraph twenty pages back was but what entails it so that sentence is interlinked with the one they write at present? I again suppose that the answer is likely the thought that forms the whole of the piece lays in dwelling, and also lays in part on paper in a plan or notes, when one writes they can often forget an exact thing until it springs forth when it is needed. So do we take the thinker's writing as a linear progression of consciousness which is scattered but ordered out later? Or should we take it that the product of writing is formed in dwelling, bringing each piece up and inspecting it and changing it hefore sending it back into dwelling? That perhaps by page thirty or so we then unknowingly have an entire world which the writer must coax out of themselves? How much of writing is conscious for a thinker? Before I began this piece I Had hoped to write something about where {or actually how} people who read philosophy and theory should talk about this subject of their choosing, or where should philosophy's testing ground should be, should philosophy be talked about among friends who know that kind of thought or should it be among the people who do not seem to know much about philosophy when you ask them straight on? Or should it be both? Now when I began writing this I had an amount of trouble with how to start it, my planned writing wandered quite a bit, via the first words it seems my mind and Self had brought forth a dialogue from the dwelling mind. A dialogue different from the original plan and thus makes the title of this piece (a reference to Where Art Belongs) seem misplaced. This is all to ask if thought is for all subjects a same kind of thought at its very heart and if we create something consciously when writing or if the moments of conscious planning go to form with our experience and knowledge and unknown things an underlying dwelling which we must bring out. To me it seems that the Self is never the sole author of a work but rather the one who brings it out of the mind who has already written it in part. This can explain why a thinker is in many ways sometimes incorrect about their own work, they do not recognize they may have an entire underlying system of thought. If it was just the Self who writes then I would assume that nothing beyond five pages or even a single page would be written. We must ask what should be done with this knowledge, for me I would say that we must approach writing when reading and writing not as a linear project nel a dwelling project but something of the both. I would say that we must also abandon the question of "Well is it philosophy or fiction or history or sociology or so forth?" to recognize that it is simply an attempt at written thought, a thing that is messy at best. It is a kind of thought that is applied to many things, My thought is we should not allow our selves to be boxed into saying a product of thought can be placed into a single place. In the end it seems what I planned for this essay and what I said reach the same point, thought belongs in the world and to be talked about with anyone who wishes to do so and to not be constrained within a single place, thought does not belong to the name philosophy nel does it belong in the academy, it belongs in the kitchen among the cooks and workers and actors and to be talked about without labeling it. It belongs in the air and in dialogue. Or as simply as I can say it, thought belongs anywhere thought is found.
<//>.
thought belongs to anyone who will have it.
April 12th, 2022, written over three days, taking place on April 9th, April 10th, and April 12th.