E*sequiturs nr. 101: 52,560,000 minutes

TO THE VAST EMPTY SPACES of Space, to Miraculous Inhabitants present and future endowed with sentience, joie de vivre and curiosity, to the Indifferent Clockmotor, Time: Greetings.

This is the ongoing, online version of e*sequiturs, the mental process witness and mind upload vehicle of M David St.-Lascaux, so Very Truly Yours, Hello (Yes Hello).

This blog is best (really only) redd having already redd the ebook, but if you must insist on living in darkness, please at least rede the Anapology. SPOILER ALERT FOR E*SEQUITURS THE BOOK: If you’ve redd e*sequiturs, you know that your humble interlocutor closed it out with a Pepysian “good night.” (If not, you do somewhat deserve to have the ending spoiled although I do sincerely pity you).

Having said good night, it’s fitting to now say a cheerful “good morning!” But before we do, we must Journey to the End of the Night (Voyage au bout de la nuit), must we not? M Céline’s opus referenced in e*sequitur 46, and his e*sequitrive influence on a pleonasmic passel of misanthropes opposed by the erudite Julia Kristeva, who has posited abjection and – pourquois? – the very space of abjection, which the Negatorians (or even we) might call immanently vast.

With that behind us, let’s begin another bright and cheerful day with a prefatory, contemplative poem (given 52,560,000 minutes in a life lived to 100):

your life, in appliance billing units

At age fifty, you’ll have
twenty-six million minutes
more to live if
you live to be one hundred

stipulated that
when your contract expires
unused minutes
will not carry forward

Gentle reminder
to consider true things,
catch blossoms in your hair
attempt utopia
you could do worse

* * *

And move on, without delay, to a mandatory kind of erotica (What? Smut, in e*sequiturs?), specifically, an excerpt from Philippe Sollers’s Eloge de l’infini, as quoted and translated by the gynophilic Bernard Perroud:

«”… Et il vaut mieux laisser tomber si ça n’intéresse pas, si on ne se sent pas doue pour. Tout le monde ne peut pas jouer du piano, tout le monde ne peut pas être écrivain, n’est-ce pas? J’assume pleinement la responsabilité de ce propos monstrueux. C’est la raison pour laquelle les religions n’ont pas bouge par sequelles sont la, construites sur quelque chose de fort solide qui est, allons-y calmement, que 90% des humains sont en mauvais termes avec le sexe. La métaphysique tout entière se formalise autour de cette butée….» et

«Je vais donc m’avancer en disant ceci : il faudrait essayer d’arrêter de mentir et dire que très peu de gens finalement ont affaire à ce qui se passe dans l’expérience sexuelle; ce serait d’ailleurs la même chose avec l’art, sans confondre les deux. Comme le dit Cézanne, l’art s’adresse á extrêmement peu d’individus. La psychanalyse entend écouter tout le monde, mais je suis frappe par le très peu de gens que la sexualité intéresse vraiment et qui s’en servent a des fins de connaissance. On ne va plus pouvoir tenir ce discours généralisateur ,” démocratique”, comme si c’était la même chose pour tout le monde. Il y a beaucoup moins de gens doués pour le sexe qu’on ne l’imagine habituellement.»

which translates, roughly, to (italics mine):

“… And it’s better to drop it if not interested, if you do not feel gifted. Everybody cannot play the piano, everyone cannot be a writer, n’est-ce pas? I assume full responsibility for this monstrous connection. That is why religions do not move sequentially, (but rather) are built on something that is very solid, let’s go quietly, that 90% of humans are on bad terms with sex. Metaphysics is entirely formalized around this foundation.” and

“Anyway… we can best articulate the undemocratic aspect of sex. I think (it is) unreasonable to pretend that everyone had the same approach to the issue. I will therefore advance by saying you should try to stop lying and acknowledge that very few people eventually address what happens in sexual experience, the same with art, without confusing the two. As Cezanne stated, art is for very few individuals. Psychoanalysis will listen to everyone, but I am struck by the very few people that sexuality truly interests and who commit themselves to the ends of its knowledge. Nobody will be able to hold this speech generalization as “democratic,” as if it was the same for everyone. There are far fewer people good at sex than is usually imagined.” Q.E.D.

Nr. 102 >

* * *

Enhance your mind
As always, you are invited to rede the original e*sequiturs at http://www.esequiturs.com.

* * *

Leave a Reply