Saturday, June 14, 2014

IN THE INTERSTICE OF LOOKING AND PERCEIVING

My sense of the temporal has always been tenuous. I have a rich and vivid dream life. My dreams often lie but in the fictions i dream of, a modicum of realness is discernible. The propensity to dissemble is irresistible because in trying to apprehend the depths of my self in my dreams i often seal off and put a stopper on  those very depths, taking comfort in anodyne restitutions that buttress my consciousness but leave the depths unplumbed. Other times willy nilly the nature of my imaginings, the forms my subconscious creates around the misshapen narrative of my life as i tell it to myself betoken a deeper truth which is immanent. All i need to do is to access it.

Some dreams are recollected vividly, others fragmentarily while others not at all. Does the intensity of recollection rely on the intensity of the dream or is it that the conscious chooses to retain for itself what it finds sanguine. Memory sometimes proves to be intransigent because the vivider the dream the more indistinct the recollection and the more random the dream the more visible its impact on recollection. This intractability i allude to is a fluidity in actuality because causality functions capriciously. All the discoveries that neuroscience is making seem redolent of what theorists call deconstruction, the stripping away of all our imaginings and romantic fancies for  incontrovertible, indubitable fact.

In one's own self the progression from looking to perceiving is seamless, often unformulated but nonetheless conspicuous. Looking is itself perceiving while perceiving is, perhaps, a higher order of looking. The blank slate, the tabula rasa of consciousness receives impressions that are then sifted, sorted and allocated. But these allocations are predetermined because the texture of reality they reassemble is a retroactive assemblage of things previously known. Yet that which is assembled is configured, appropriated, measured and then acted upon.

Understanding phenomena yields no great insight because what is seen is what has already been perceived. What is perceived is merely a relooking at, from a prior point of view. Things can be seen from all angles, tilted, analysed, excoriated but the fundamental reality of irreality is unalterable . What is looked at is that which has already imbued with perception. What is perceived is that which has been collectively looked at and absorbed. All it needs is an instant, an infinitesimal moment where, through a blending of the 'I' with the 'we' a dissolution occurs, a fragmentation of self from self. That becomes becoming. 

No comments:

Post a Comment