Spirit’s return-to-itself creates the very dimension to which it returns. What this means is that the “negation of the negation ,” the “return-to-oneself” from alienation, does not occur where it seems to: in the negation of the negation, Spirit’s negativity is not relativized, subsumed under an encompassing positivity; it is, on the contrary, the “simple negation” which remains attached to the presupposed positivity it has negated, the presupposed Otherness from which it alienates itself, and the negation of the negation is nothing but the negation of the substantial character of this Otherness itself, the full acceptance of the abyss of Spirit’s self-relating which retroactively posits all its presuppositions. In other words, once we are in negativity, we can never leave it and regain the lost innocence of the origins; in the “negation of the negation” the origins are truly lost, their very loss is lost, they are deprived of the substantial status of that which has been lost. Spirit heals its wound not directly, but by getting rid of the full and sane Body into which the wound was cut. It is in this precise sense that, according to Hegel, “the wounds of the Spirit heal, and leave no scars behind.” His point is not that Spirit heals its wounds so perfectly that, in a magical gesture of retroactive sublation, even the scars disappear; the point is rather that, in the course of the dialectical process, a shift of perspective occurs which makes the wound itself appear as its opposite— the wound itself is its own healing when seen from another standpoint.
You are the boss of me
Widget of all widgets
The bestest mostest
The real hamburger
With the suds
I looked it up and they're speaking Arabic
The word was "philogeant"
One who loves everything on earth
Free associator extraordinaire!
Love your poetry war!
Pyromancy never felt so good
For the poor by the poor
Prerequisite for love
Our ghosts are well fed
And they'll show us the way
Just talk to the hand
By burning it
Forest by forest
Saturday 23 May 2015 at 730p. Free admission. Donations accepted. Books will be available for sale.
Gallery 1412 is at 1412 18th Avenue, just north of Union St on the east side of Capitol Hill in Seattle.
The reading features poets coming together across various borders for, among other things, a Seattle launch of Donato Mancini's Loitersack from New Star (Vancouver).
Loitersack is a labyrinthine commonplace book where critical, theoretical and paraliterary tendencies intersect in the forms of poetry, poetics, theory, theory theatre, laugh particles and many many questions.
Sarah Dowling is the author of Down (Coach House), Security Posture and Birds & Bees. Sarah's poetry was included in the anthology I'll Drown My Book: Conceptual Writing by Women. She teaches at the University of Washington Bothell and is international editor at Jacket2.
Donato Mancini makes visual and procedural poetry, bookworks, and visual art. His main books are: SNOWLINE (2015), Buffet World, Fact 'N' Value, Æthel and Ligatures. Notable exhibitions of Mancini’s visual artworks have included exhibitions through Artspeak, Western Front, Gallery Atsui, Malaspina Printmaker's Society, and CSA. Mancini's published critical writing includes work on the archive, time and memory in Anamnesia: Unforgetting (2011), and a discourse analysis of poetry reviews in You Must Work Harder to Write Poetry of Excellence (2012).
Maged Zaher was born in Cairo, and currently lives in Seattle. He is the author of four books of poetry and the translator of an anthology of contemporary Egyptian poetry. He won the weekly Stranger's Genius award in literature in 2013.
If communism is in large part a refusal to keep accounts, then one could make a case for a less narrative poetics, i.e., not obsessed with its own(ed) accounts?
We too easily forget that "these" 3 bananas do not equal "those" 3 bananas? The abstraction of number doesn't work well with Plato's idea - ideal image of what stands behind appointed objects.
In other words, the particular/concrete doesn't have universal equivalents? Money is inherently abstract.
It is amusing that the etymology of philanthropy is very much the same as the etymology of philanderer. The etymology = Love + (hu)man.
Not sure what money has to do with it? Are these two different aspects or articulations of the economy of excess: one emphasizing accumulation and the other emphasizing expenditure?
Do philanthropists necessarily embrace the anthropocene? No. I think the philanthropist loves the genre /abstraction of man - and pays tribute. Philanderers love specific instances of the human - and they spend themselves- directly throwing themselves at and into the lives/bodies of these specific humans.
The antidote to the patriarchy packed into these two ugly terms may be 'polyandry'?
If I could tell a joke it would start: these three bananas walked into a bar...